Phepha MV Security Services v Collins Sebola Financial Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (21375/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 633 (24 August 2022)

Phepha MV Security Services v Collins Sebola Financial Services (Pty) Ltd and Others (21375/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 633 (24 August 2022)

The applicant's challenge to service is purely legal, not factual. The court finds that service by email was permitted under the Judge President's Directive during the COVID-19 lockdown, and the applicant does not dispute receipt of the application. The Directive does not require agreement for electronic service in urgent matters, nor does Rule 6(12) impose such a requirement. The applicant has not made out a case that service was ineffective or that it did not receive the application. The court exercises its discretion to find that service was effective and legally permissible. There is no factual dispute requiring referral to oral evidence. The rescission application is dismissed with...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 633
Parties
Applicant: Phepha MV Security Services; Respondent: Collins Sebola Financial Services (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Sheriff of Pretoria Central; Respondent: South African Forestry Company SOC Ltd; Respondent: Tsepo Mohaneng; Respondent: Clement Nhuvunga; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Bid Specification Committee of the Third Respondent in respect of RFB 011/2019; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Bid Evaluation Committee of the Third Respondent in respect of RFB 011/2019; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication in respect of the RFB 011/2019; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Third Respondent; Respondent: The Chairperson of the Financial Committee of the Third Respondent; Respondent: Phuthadichaba Trading Enterprise CC
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 August 2022
Case Number
21375/2020
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(a)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
de Vos
Legal Topics
Service of Process, Electronic Service, Urgent Application, Condonation, Rule 42 Rescission, Covid19 Directives
Civil Procedure Administrative Law Service of Process Electronic Service Urgent Application Condonation Rule 42 Rescission Covid19 Directives

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 4 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phepha MV Security Services

Applicant

Collins Sebola Financial Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Sheriff of Pretoria Central

Respondent

South African Forestry Company SOC Ltd

Respondent

Tsepo Mohaneng

Respondent

Clement Nhuvunga

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Bid Specification Committee of the Third Respondent in respect of RFB 011/2019

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Bid Evaluation Committee of the Third Respondent in respect of RFB 011/2019

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Bid Adjudication in respect of the RFB 011/2019

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Audit Committee of the Third Respondent

Respondent

The Chairperson of the Financial Committee of the Third Respondent

Respondent

Phuthadichaba Trading Enterprise CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment Under Rule 42(1)(a)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether service of the review application by email was legally permissible under the Uniform Rules of Court and the Judge President's Directive.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was properly served before the relief was sought in the review application.
  3. 3 Whether the rescission application should be granted under Rule 42(1)(a) on the basis of alleged erroneous absence of service.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's challenge to service is purely legal, not factual. The court finds that service by email was permitted under the Judge President's Directive during the COVID-19 lockdown, and the applicant does not dispute receipt of the application. The Directive does not require agreement for electronic service in urgent matters, nor does Rule 6(12) impose such a requirement. The applicant has not made out a case that service was ineffective or that it did not receive the application. The court exercises its discretion to find that service was effective and legally permissible. There is no factual dispute requiring referral to oral evidence. The rescission application is dismissed with...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.