Ratshitanga and Another v Madima N.O and Others (35748/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 76 (1 February 2023)

Ratshitanga and Another v Madima N.O and Others (35748/2018) [2023] ZAGPJHC 76 (1 February 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for rescission under rule 42(1)(a) as the judgment was not granted in their absence and no error or irregularity in the proceedings was established. Attorney negligence does not constitute a ground for rescission under rule 42 or common law. The applicants were legally represented throughout and their explanation for the delay in bringing the application was unreasonable. Furthermore, the application was brought almost three years after the judgment, and no bona fide defence was demonstrated. The court emphasized that rescission proceedings are not intended to reopen cases where litigants are dissatisfied...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 76
Parties
Applicant: Julia Moitheri Ratshitanga; Applicant: Esther Mgijima; Respondent: Hope Matshidiso Madima N.O.; Respondent: Vusumuzi Isaiah Zwane N.O.; Respondent: Mabelindile Archiebald Luhlabo N.O.; Respondent: Bennett Mlamli Nikani N.O.; Respondent: The Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2023
Case Number
35748/2018
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Summary Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Flatela
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Rule 42 Uniform Rules, Summary Judgment, Condonation for Late Filing, Misappropriation of Trust Funds
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Rule 42 Uniform Rules Summary Judgment Condonation for Late Filing Misappropriation of Trust Funds

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julia Moitheri Ratshitanga

Applicant

Esther Mgijima

Applicant

Hope Matshidiso Madima N.O.

Respondent

Vusumuzi Isaiah Zwane N.O.

Respondent

Mabelindile Archiebald Luhlabo N.O.

Respondent

Bennett Mlamli Nikani N.O.

Respondent

The Registrar of Deeds, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Opposed Application for Rescission of Summary Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have met the jurisdictional requirements for rescission under rule 42 of the Uniform Rules of Court and common law.
  2. 2 Whether the judgment was erroneously sought or granted in terms of rule 42(1)(a).
  3. 3 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for the delay and demonstrated a bona fide defence for rescission under common law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the jurisdictional requirements for rescission under rule 42(1)(a) as the judgment was not granted in their absence and no error or irregularity in the proceedings was established. Attorney negligence does not constitute a ground for rescission under rule 42 or common law. The applicants were legally represented throughout and their explanation for the delay in bringing the application was unreasonable. Furthermore, the application was brought almost three years after the judgment, and no bona fide defence was demonstrated. The court emphasized that rescission proceedings are not intended to reopen cases where litigants are dissatisfied...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.