Obiang v Janse van Rensburg and Others (714/2023) [2025] ZASCA 30 (31 March 2025)

Obiang v Janse van Rensburg and Others (714/2023) [2025] ZASCA 30 (31 March 2025)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, after terminating his attorney's mandate, failed to appoint a new address for service as required by rule 16(2)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Despite being notified of this obligation, he did not comply and ignored multiple attempts to reach him. Service of legal process on the Embassy, as designated in the notice of withdrawal, was valid because it achieved the purpose of service—bringing the proceedings to the appellant's attention. The appellant's claim that he did not receive notice was unsupported by credible evidence, and his failure to provide affidavits from relevant Embassy staff undermined his version. The court found that...

Citation
[2025] ZASCA 30
Parties
Appellant: Teodorin Nguema Obiang; Respondent: Daniel Welman Janse van Rensburg; Respondent: Sheriff, Cape Town West; Respondent: Registrar of Deeds, Western Cape
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 March 2025
Case Number
714/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Nicholls, Meyer, Kathree-Setiloane, Coppin, Chili
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Service of Process, Uniform Rules of Court, Representation of Parties
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Service of Process Uniform Rules of Court Representation of Parties

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teodorin Nguema Obiang

Appellant

Daniel Welman Janse van Rensburg

Respondent

Sheriff, Cape Town West

Respondent

Registrar of Deeds, Western Cape

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of legal process on an unrepresented foreign litigant at the address appointed by a former attorney after withdrawal is legally permissible.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was entitled to rescission of two judgments under rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's failure to appoint a new address for service invalidated subsequent service and court orders.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, after terminating his attorney's mandate, failed to appoint a new address for service as required by rule 16(2)(b) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Despite being notified of this obligation, he did not comply and ignored multiple attempts to reach him. Service of legal process on the Embassy, as designated in the notice of withdrawal, was valid because it achieved the purpose of service—bringing the proceedings to the appellant's attention. The appellant's claim that he did not receive notice was unsupported by credible evidence, and his failure to provide affidavits from relevant Embassy staff undermined his version. The court found that...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those of two counsel where so employed.