Road Accident Fund v Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Sunshine Hospital [Manzhini] (32351/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1192 (15 September 2023)

Road Accident Fund v Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Sunshine Hospital [Manzhini] (32351/2020) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1192 (15 September 2023)

The applicant failed to provide any evidence in support of condonation in its founding affidavit and only addressed the issue in reply. The applicant had full knowledge of the proceedings and the requirement to seek condonation by 18 January 2022, yet failed to comply. The applicant's non-attendance was a deliberate decision, and it acquiesced to the judgment by making substantial payment. The defences relied upon were available at the time of default judgment and cannot now be raised. The applicant has no prospects of success, and the judgment was not erroneously granted. The requirements for rescission under Rule 42 and common law were not met. The application was pursued in a manner...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1192
Parties
Applicant: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Sunshine Hospital [Manzhini]
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2023
Case Number
32351/2020
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Condonation and Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Minnaar
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Condonation, Default Judgment, Rule 42, Punitive Costs
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Condonation Default Judgment Rule 42 Punitive Costs

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Road Accident Fund

Applicant

Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd t/a Sunshine Hospital [Manzhini]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Condonation and Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown sufficient cause for condonation of the late filing of the rescission application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to rescission of the default judgment granted on 9 December 2020.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has prospects of success in defending the action.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide any evidence in support of condonation in its founding affidavit and only addressed the issue in reply. The applicant had full knowledge of the proceedings and the requirement to seek condonation by 18 January 2022, yet failed to comply. The applicant's non-attendance was a deliberate decision, and it acquiesced to the judgment by making substantial payment. The defences relied upon were available at the time of default judgment and cannot now be raised. The applicant has no prospects of success, and the judgment was not erroneously granted. The requirements for rescission under Rule 42 and common law were not met. The application was pursued in a manner...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on the scale as between attorney and client.