Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd v Crockery Gladstone Farm (HCA15/2017) [2017] ZALMPPHC 35 (7 November 2017)

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd v Crockery Gladstone Farm (HCA15/2017) [2017] ZALMPPHC 35 (7 November 2017)

The court held that the appellant was in default because it failed to file opposing affidavits, regardless of counsel's presence in court. The judgment granted on 2 August 2016 was a default judgment. The respondent's counsel did not disclose to the presiding judge that settlement discussions were pending and that there was an agreement to postpone if settlement was not reached. This omission constituted an error that induced the granting of default judgment. The requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1) were met, as the judgment was erroneously sought and granted. The appeal was upheld, the default judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted leave to file its answering affidavit.

Citation
[2017] ZALMPPHC 35
Parties
Appellant: Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Crockery Gladstone Farm
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 November 2017
Case Number
HCA 15/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; default judgment set aside; appellant granted leave to file answering affidavit.
Judges
E M Makgoba, M F Kganyago, M S Sikhwari
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 31, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42, Good Cause Requirement, Postponement of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Uniform Rules of Court Rule 31 Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42 Good Cause Requirement Postponement of Proceedings

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Crockery Gladstone Farm

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant was in default despite its counsel's attendance in court when judgment was granted.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant made out a case for rescission of judgment under Rule 31(2)(b) and/or Rule 42(1).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the appellant was in default because it failed to file opposing affidavits, regardless of counsel's presence in court. The judgment granted on 2 August 2016 was a default judgment. The respondent's counsel did not disclose to the presiding judge that settlement discussions were pending and that there was an agreement to postpone if settlement was not reached. This omission constituted an error that induced the granting of default judgment. The requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1) were met, as the judgment was erroneously sought and granted. The appeal was upheld, the default judgment set aside, and the appellant was granted leave to file its answering affidavit.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; default judgment set aside; appellant granted leave to file answering affidavit.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The judgment granted by MG Phatudi J in case number 1395/2016 on 2 August 2016 is set aside.