Nemugumon and Others v Thabatshweu Housing Company (Soc) Ltd t/a Polokwane Housing Association and Another (10206/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 39 (18 February 2025)

Nemugumon and Others v Thabatshweu Housing Company (Soc) Ltd t/a Polokwane Housing Association and Another (10206/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 39 (18 February 2025)

The court found that Rule 31(2)(b) does not apply to motion proceedings, and the applicants did not plead jurisdictional facts under Rule 42 or common law. The applicants were not absent from the proceedings, and no grounds for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or common law were established. The applicants failed to show that the orders were erroneously sought or granted in their absence, nor did they demonstrate sufficient cause or a bona fide defence. Consequently, the court lacked discretion to rescind the orders and dismissed the applications.

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 39
Parties
Applicant: Sipho Martin Nemugumon N Malapepane Mogale Peter Manyakkwane Mchel Makgowatha Kgoledi Fotanie Tiiso George Mothiba Mbotse Kgapane Pailane Jane Emmanuel Kwinda Teis Nteboheng Princess Shongwe Rondney Mashaba Nicolas Matoa Elizabeth Shikwambana Miyelani Mphohweni Shontsani Mabunda Nkateko Ngobeni Christinah Mugwena Humbulani Monica Tathogwa Mufamadzo Emma Mpyana L.M Leballo Khimotso Matlou Masebotjane Albert Enyioko Mpho Poeria Maoka Nare Nelso Machaba Khomotso Nancy Mapholo Lucia Mathopa Kolobe Moelelwa Mavis Phala Roney Ngoatje Joyce Namathe Thomas Koma Mosedudi Alfred Tshipuralo Collen; Respondent: Thabatshweu Housing Company (SOC) Ltd t/a Polokwane Housing Association; Respondent: Polokwane Local Municipality
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 February 2025
Case Number
10206/2023
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Default Eviction Orders
Outcome
Applications for rescission are dismissed.
Judges
Mathabathe
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Eviction Proceedings, Uniform Rules of Court, Default Judgment, Common Law Rescission
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Eviction Proceedings Uniform Rules of Court Default Judgment Common Law Rescission

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sipho Martin Nemugumon N Malapepane Mogale Peter Manyakkwane Mchel Makgowatha Kgoledi Fotanie Tiiso George Mothiba Mbotse Kgapane Pailane Jane Emmanuel Kwinda Teis Nteboheng Princess Shongwe Rondney Mashaba Nicolas Matoa Elizabeth Shikwambana Miyelani Mphohweni Shontsani Mabunda Nkateko Ngobeni Christinah Mugwena Humbulani Monica Tathogwa Mufamadzo Emma Mpyana L.M Leballo Khimotso Matlou Masebotjane Albert Enyioko Mpho Poeria Maoka Nare Nelso Machaba Khomotso Nancy Mapholo Lucia Mathopa Kolobe Moelelwa Mavis Phala Roney Ngoatje Joyce Namathe Thomas Koma Mosedudi Alfred Tshipuralo Collen

Applicant

Thabatshweu Housing Company (SOC) Ltd t/a Polokwane Housing Association

Respondent

Polokwane Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Default Eviction Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to rescission of the default eviction orders granted on 12 February 2024.
  2. 2 Whether Rule 31(2)(b) of the Uniform Rules applies to the rescission of orders granted in motion proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have met the jurisdictional requirements for rescission under Rule 42 or common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Rule 31(2)(b) does not apply to motion proceedings, and the applicants did not plead jurisdictional facts under Rule 42 or common law. The applicants were not absent from the proceedings, and no grounds for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or common law were established. The applicants failed to show that the orders were erroneously sought or granted in their absence, nor did they demonstrate sufficient cause or a bona fide defence. Consequently, the court lacked discretion to rescind the orders and dismissed the applications.

Court Disposition

Applications for rescission are dismissed.

Orders

  • The applications are dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.