Ntwampe and Others v Royal Family of Magadimana Ntweng (Mampuru Group) and Others (53333/2010) [2016] ZAGPPHC 17 (22 January 2016)

Ntwampe and Others v Royal Family of Magadimana Ntweng (Mampuru Group) and Others (53333/2010) [2016] ZAGPPHC 17 (22 January 2016)

The court found that the applicants had properly served their notice of intention to oppose and answering affidavit on the respondents' attorneys' correspondents, making the application opposed. The failure of the documents to reach the instructing attorneys or be filed in the court file did not render the matter unopposed. The respondents' attorneys should have made further enquiries upon receiving correspondence indicating opposition. The conduct of respondents' attorneys was not found to be fraudulent or unethical, but their correspondents were lax. The default order was erroneously granted, and the applicants cannot be blamed for the circumstances. The application to set aside the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 17
Parties
Applicant: Diphala Asnath Ntwampe; Applicant: Ntwampe Justice Ntwampe; Applicant: The Royal Family of Magadimana Ntweng (Matibidi Group); Respondent: The Royal Family of Magadimana Ntweng (Mampuru Group); Respondent: Segopotje Scara Mampuru; Respondent: Nkaholeng Johannes Ntwampe; Respondent: Manyaku Maria Thulare; Respondent: Mashupje Hans Nwampe; Respondent: Morwamoche Andrew Ntwampe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 January 2016
Case Number
53333/2010
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment
Outcome
Application granted; default judgment and order of 28 August 2014 set aside; costs awarded against respondents' attorneys de bonis propriis.
Judges
Msimeki
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Documents, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Service of Documents Punitive Costs

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Diphala Asnath Ntwampe

Applicant

Ntwampe Justice Ntwampe

Applicant

The Royal Family of Magadimana Ntweng (Matibidi Group)

Applicant

The Royal Family of Magadimana Ntweng (Mampuru Group)

Respondent

Segopotje Scara Mampuru

Respondent

Nkaholeng Johannes Ntwampe

Respondent

Manyaku Maria Thulare

Respondent

Mashupje Hans Nwampe

Respondent

Morwamoche Andrew Ntwampe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Set Aside Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default order granted on 28 August 2014 was competent in light of service of opposing papers.
  2. 2 Whether respondents' attorneys acted unethically or fraudulently in obtaining the default order.
  3. 3 Whether punitive costs de bonis propriis should be awarded against respondents' attorneys.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had properly served their notice of intention to oppose and answering affidavit on the respondents' attorneys' correspondents, making the application opposed. The failure of the documents to reach the instructing attorneys or be filed in the court file did not render the matter unopposed. The respondents' attorneys should have made further enquiries upon receiving correspondence indicating opposition. The conduct of respondents' attorneys was not found to be fraudulent or unethical, but their correspondents were lax. The default order was erroneously granted, and the applicants cannot be blamed for the circumstances. The application to set aside the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; default judgment and order of 28 August 2014 set aside; costs awarded against respondents' attorneys de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The judgment and order granted on 28 August 2014 are set aside.
  • Respondents' attorneys J M Rampora Attorneys are ordered to pay the costs of the application de bonis propriis.