Sapong and Others v Mnzingane N.O (533/2013) [2015] ZAECMHC 1 (29 January 2015)

Sapong and Others v Mnzingane N.O (533/2013) [2015] ZAECMHC 1 (29 January 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the eviction order was erroneously sought or granted. The evidence showed that only the third applicant was represented and that the first and second applicants had decided not to oppose the relief sought, leaving the third applicant to defend the matter. The court held that, even absent any representation of consent, the respondent was procedurally entitled to the eviction order due to the lack of opposition. There was no procedural irregularity or error justifying rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or common law. The applicants did not show good cause for their failure to oppose the original application, and the application for...

Citation
[2015] ZAECMHC 1
Parties
Applicant: Alex Sapong; Applicant: Transworld Procurement; Applicant: Naneem Ahmad; Respondent: Maphelo Mnzingane N.O
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2015
Case Number
533/2013
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Prior Eviction Order
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Eviction, Rule 42 Variation and Rescission, Default Judgment, Lease Termination
Civil Procedure Land and Property Rescission of Judgment Eviction Rule 42 Variation and Rescission Default Judgment Lease Termination

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alex Sapong

Applicant

Transworld Procurement

Applicant

Naneem Ahmad

Applicant

Maphelo Mnzingane N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Judgment on Application for Rescission of Prior Eviction Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the eviction order granted on 10 May 2012 was erroneously sought or granted by consent.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established grounds for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or common law.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants showed good cause for failing to oppose the original application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the eviction order was erroneously sought or granted. The evidence showed that only the third applicant was represented and that the first and second applicants had decided not to oppose the relief sought, leaving the third applicant to defend the matter. The court held that, even absent any representation of consent, the respondent was procedurally entitled to the eviction order due to the lack of opposition. There was no procedural irregularity or error justifying rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or common law. The applicants did not show good cause for their failure to oppose the original application, and the application for...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.