Nthejane v Department of Health, Free State (PS7/15) [2019] ZALCPE 13 (18 July 2019)

Nthejane v Department of Health, Free State (PS7/15) [2019] ZALCPE 13 (18 July 2019)

The Court found that the respondent's default was wilful and deliberate, as it consciously chose not to attend the hearing without making enquiries or seeking an indulgence. The respondent was aware of the hearing date and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the status of the matter. The procedural requirements set by the interlocutory order of 14 August 2015 were not absolute, and the Court was entitled to proceed with the matter. The respondent did not establish good cause for rescission, as its explanation for default was inadequate and its conduct evinced disregard for the Rules. Consequently, the application for rescission was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZALCPE 13
Parties
Applicant: Dimakatso Grace Nthejane; Respondent: The Department of Health, Free State
Court
Labour Court Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 July 2019
Case Number
PS7/15
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed.
Judges
Nieuwoudt
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Wilful Default, Good Cause, Labour Court Rules, Default Judgment
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Wilful Default Good Cause Labour Court Rules Default Judgment

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dimakatso Grace Nthejane

Applicant

The Department of Health, Free State

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment granted against the respondent should be rescinded under rule 16A(1)(a) or 16A(1)(b).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's default was wilful or due to gross negligence.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent showed good cause for rescission.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the respondent's default was wilful and deliberate, as it consciously chose not to attend the hearing without making enquiries or seeking an indulgence. The respondent was aware of the hearing date and failed to take reasonable steps to ascertain the status of the matter. The procedural requirements set by the interlocutory order of 14 August 2015 were not absolute, and the Court was entitled to proceed with the matter. The respondent did not establish good cause for rescission, as its explanation for default was inadequate and its conduct evinced disregard for the Rules. Consequently, the application for rescission was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.