Sekgala v Nedbank Limited (12231/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 159 (17 February 2017)

Sekgala v Nedbank Limited (12231/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 159 (17 February 2017)

The court found that the applicant was properly notified of the hearing date for the application for leave to appeal via his nominated email address and conceded receipt of all correspondence. The applicant's explanation for his absence, namely his belief that the proceedings were unlawful and irregular, was rejected as unacceptable. The court held that the applicant wilfully and deliberately failed to appear, distinguishing his conduct from that in Tobol and Others v LS Group Management Services (Pty) Ltd, where the applicants were unaware of the set down. As the applicant was in wilful default, the order refusing leave to appeal was not erroneously granted within the meaning of rule...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 159
Parties
Applicant: Rammutlana Boelie Sekgala; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2017
Case Number
12231/2014
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Order Refusing Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Makhoba
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Wilful Default, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42, Leave to Appeal
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Wilful Default Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42 Leave to Appeal

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rammutlana Boelie Sekgala

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Order Refusing Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order refusing leave to appeal was erroneously granted in the absence of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant was properly notified of the hearing date for the application for leave to appeal.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's failure to appear constitutes wilful default.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant was properly notified of the hearing date for the application for leave to appeal via his nominated email address and conceded receipt of all correspondence. The applicant's explanation for his absence, namely his belief that the proceedings were unlawful and irregular, was rejected as unacceptable. The court held that the applicant wilfully and deliberately failed to appear, distinguishing his conduct from that in Tobol and Others v LS Group Management Services (Pty) Ltd, where the applicants were unaware of the set down. As the applicant was in wilful default, the order refusing leave to appeal was not erroneously granted within the meaning of rule...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the order granted by MAKUME J on 14 December 2015 is dismissed.
  • Applicant to pay the costs on attorney and client scale.