Rabosiwana v Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd (28108/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 367 (26 April 2024)

Rabosiwana v Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd (28108/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 367 (26 April 2024)

The court found that both parties approached the application incorrectly, referencing rules applicable to condonation and good cause rather than the specific requirements of Rule 31(6)(b) and section 23(A)(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant failed to provide proof that the judgment debt, interest, and costs had been paid, as required by the rule. The bond cancellation letter did not confirm settlement of the debt, and the applicant continued to make payments under an acknowledgement of debt after the bond cancellation. No allegation or evidence was presented that the judgment debt had been settled. The timing of the application and the existence of a bona fide defence were...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 367
Parties
Applicant: Moloko Benedette Rabosiwana; Respondent: Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 April 2024
Case Number
28108/2018
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against respondent on party and party scale.
Judges
Naude
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Payment of Judgment Debt, Credit Bureau Entry
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Payment of Judgment Debt Credit Bureau Entry

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

Parties

Moloko Benedette Rabosiwana

Applicant

Changing Tides 17 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for rescission of judgment under Rule 31(6)(b) and section 23(A)(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act.
  2. 2 Whether proof exists that the judgment debt, interest, and costs have been paid.
  3. 3 Whether the timing of the application or existence of a bona fide defence is relevant under the applicable rule.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both parties approached the application incorrectly, referencing rules applicable to condonation and good cause rather than the specific requirements of Rule 31(6)(b) and section 23(A)(2)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. The applicant failed to provide proof that the judgment debt, interest, and costs had been paid, as required by the rule. The bond cancellation letter did not confirm settlement of the debt, and the applicant continued to make payments under an acknowledgement of debt after the bond cancellation. No allegation or evidence was presented that the judgment debt had been settled. The timing of the application and the existence of a bona fide defence were...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against respondent on party and party scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The respondent is to pay the party and party costs of the application.