Ramphaul and Others v Jindal Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (48783/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 117 (28 January 2025)

Ramphaul and Others v Jindal Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (48783/2018) [2025] ZAGPPHC 117 (28 January 2025)

The court found that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence in support of their claim for default judgment by incorporating annexure A3 into their affidavit. The defendants' defence had been struck out, and they were not entitled to file opposing papers or raise a defence to the claim for default judgment. The authorities cited by the applicants were not applicable to the facts of this case, as they concerned situations where a court considers dismissing a claim or striking out a defence, which was not the case here. The requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 117
Parties
Applicant: Shahrina Ramphaul; Applicant: Zia Group (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Global Visa Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Zubeida Ramphaul; Applicant: Nashmeia Ramphaul; Applicant: Thandi Mulaudzi; Respondent: Jindal Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jindal Africa Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Eastern Solid Fuels (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 January 2025
Case Number
48783/2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
O Mooki
Legal Topics
Default Judgment, Rule 31 2 a, Leave to Appeal, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Default Judgment Rule 31 2 a Leave to Appeal Costs Order

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shahrina Ramphaul

Applicant

Zia Group (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Global Visa Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Zubeida Ramphaul

Applicant

Nashmeia Ramphaul

Applicant

Thandi Mulaudzi

Applicant

Jindal Mining South Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Jindal Africa Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Eastern Solid Fuels (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court erred in granting default judgment without sufficient proof on oath as required by Rule 31(2)(a).
  2. 2 Whether the matter should have been heard in the opposed motion court due to the filing of an affidavit opposing default judgment.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants were entitled to file opposing papers after their defence had been struck out.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs had provided sufficient evidence in support of their claim for default judgment by incorporating annexure A3 into their affidavit. The defendants' defence had been struck out, and they were not entitled to file opposing papers or raise a defence to the claim for default judgment. The authorities cited by the applicants were not applicable to the facts of this case, as they concerned situations where a court considers dismissing a claim or striking out a defence, which was not the case here. The requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act were not met, as there was no reasonable prospect of success on appeal.

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The first to sixth applicants are ordered to pay costs, the one paying to be absolved.