Reeds and Another v First Rand Bank Limited (56648/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 626 (23 August 2018)

Reeds and Another v First Rand Bank Limited (56648/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 626 (23 August 2018)

The court held that the application for rescission was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the matter had already been finally adjudicated by the Constitutional Court, and the applicants were seeking the same relief on the same grounds. The applicants failed to advance any new facts or bona fide defence with prospects of success. The application for condonation was not separately granted, as the information provided was considered in assessing whether sufficient cause was shown. The requests for a stay of execution and an interdict against auctioning the property were dismissed, as no case was made out for such relief and the matter was not subject to eviction or Rule 46A...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 626
Parties
Applicant: Reeds; Moses Raah-Shammah El Shaddai; Applicant: Reeds; Althea Marilyn; Respondent: First Rand Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2018
Case Number
56648/2015
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission and Ancillary Relief After Final Judgment and Exhaustion of Appeals
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed; point in limine (res judicata) upheld; applications for stay and interdict dismissed; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
Van der Schyff
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Res Judicata, Stay of Execution, Special Executability, Right to Housing
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Res Judicata Stay of Execution Special Executability Right to Housing

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

Reeds; Moses Raah-Shammah El Shaddai

Applicant

Reeds; Althea Marilyn

Applicant

First Rand Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission and Ancillary Relief After Final Judgment and Exhaustion of Appeals

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause under the common law for rescission of the judgment granted on 25 January 2016.
  2. 2 Whether the matter is res judicata due to prior final adjudication by the Constitutional Court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to a stay of execution or an interdict restraining the respondent from auctioning the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the application for rescission was barred by the doctrine of res judicata, as the matter had already been finally adjudicated by the Constitutional Court, and the applicants were seeking the same relief on the same grounds. The applicants failed to advance any new facts or bona fide defence with prospects of success. The application for condonation was not separately granted, as the information provided was considered in assessing whether sufficient cause was shown. The requests for a stay of execution and an interdict against auctioning the property were dismissed, as no case was made out for such relief and the matter was not subject to eviction or Rule 46A...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed; point in limine (res judicata) upheld; applications for stay and interdict dismissed; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • The respondent's point in limine is upheld.
  • The application for rescission is dismissed.