NT Makhubele Enterprises CC and Another v Business Partners Limited and Another (7861/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 399 (30 September 2019)

NT Makhubele Enterprises CC and Another v Business Partners Limited and Another (7861/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 399 (30 September 2019)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any irregularity or error in the proceedings before Cowen AJ. The information relevant to the postponement and stay application was considered by Cowen AJ, and the applicants had the opportunity to address the court on the merits of the rescission application...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 399
Parties
Applicant: NT Makhubele Enterprises CC; Applicant: Nathaniel Tsakani Makhubele; Respondent: Business Partners Limited; Respondent: The Taxing Master – Johannesburg High Court
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2019
Case Number
7861/2018
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission Under Rule 42(1)(a) and Common Law
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
E Dreyer
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Rule 42 1 a, Default Judgment, Postponement Application
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Rule 42 1 a Default Judgment Postponement Application

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NT Makhubele Enterprises CC

Applicant

Nathaniel Tsakani Makhubele

Applicant

Business Partners Limited

Respondent

The Taxing Master – Johannesburg High Court

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission Under Rule 42(1)(a) and Common Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the judgment and order granted by Cowen AJ on 16 January 2019 were erroneously sought or granted in the absence of the applicants, justifying rescission under Rule 42(1)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established grounds for rescission under the common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate any irregularity or error in the proceedings before Cowen AJ. The information relevant to the postponement and stay application was considered by Cowen AJ, and the applicants had the opportunity to address the court on the merits of the rescission application but chose not to do so. All relevant affidavits and written submissions were before the court, and there was no evidence that the judgment and order were erroneously sought or granted in the applicants' absence. Furthermore, no grounds were advanced for rescission under the common law. The application for rescission was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.