Ndlhovu and Other v Trustees for the time being of the Matsaffeni Trust (30541/2012) [2013] ZAGPPHC 555 (29 November 2013)
The court found that the default judgment was the result of the attorney's negligence rather than any fault of the unlawful occupiers. A reasonable explanation for the default was provided, and the applicants raised issues regarding service and constitutional rights that warranted full consideration. The court exercised its discretion to grant rescission, emphasizing the need to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice and fairness. The costs of the rescission application and the reserved costs from the leave to appeal application were ordered to be paid by the applicants' attorney personally, as the default arose from his conduct. The court declined to award punitive costs, opting...
- Citation
- [2013] ZAGPPHC 555
- Parties
- Applicant: Thomas N Ndlhovu and 25 Others; Respondent: Trustees for the time being of the Matsaffeni Trust; Respondent: Unlawful Occupiers of the Mataffin Town; Respondent: Mbombela Municipality
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 29 November 2013
- Case Number
- 30541/2012
- Procedural Posture
- Rescission Application / Application for Rescission and Leave to Appeal Following Default Eviction Order
- Outcome
- Rescission of the default eviction order granted; costs awarded against applicants' attorney personally.
- Judges
- Mavundla
- Legal Topics
- Eviction Proceedings, Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process, Bill of Rights Limitation, Costs Orders, Right to Housing
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Thomas N Ndlhovu and 25 Others
Applicant
Trustees for the time being of the Matsaffeni Trust
Respondent
Unlawful Occupiers of the Mataffin Town
Respondent
Mbombela Municipality
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission and Leave to Appeal Following Default Eviction Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the default eviction order should be rescinded due to attorney negligence and lack of proper service.
- 2 Whether the unlawful occupiers have a bona fide defence with prospects of success.
- 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal was competent given the nature of the default order.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the default judgment was the result of the attorney's negligence rather than any fault of the unlawful occupiers. A reasonable explanation for the default was provided, and the applicants raised issues regarding service and constitutional rights that warranted full consideration. The court exercised its discretion to grant rescission, emphasizing the need to protect fundamental rights and ensure justice and fairness. The costs of the rescission application and the reserved costs from the leave to appeal application were ordered to be paid by the applicants' attorney personally, as the default arose from his conduct. The court declined to award punitive costs, opting...
Court Disposition
Rescission of the default eviction order granted; costs awarded against applicants' attorney personally.
Orders
- The order granted on 12 March 2013 is hereby rescinded.
- The applicants' attorney is ordered to pay the costs of this application de bonis propriis on a party and party scale, including reserved costs from the application for leave to appeal.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment