Selota v Cheune (52908/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 82 (31 January 2022)

Selota v Cheune (52908/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 82 (31 January 2022)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his default and delay in filing the rescission application. The reason advanced, namely awaiting taxation of invoices, was rejected as fallacious since the applicant was properly served and had filed a notice of opposition but failed to deliver an answering affidavit. The applicant did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or prospects of success, as he admitted owing the fees for nearly five years and did not query the invoices at any relevant time. The alleged agreement to pay after case completion was unsupported and unexplained. The court held that taxation was not required before payment and that the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 82
Parties
Applicant: Mamolazelo Alfred Selota; Respondent: Adv KC Chuene
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2022
Case Number
52908/2018
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
DT Skosana
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Condonation, Professional Fees, Taxation of Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Condonation Professional Fees Taxation of 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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mamolazelo Alfred Selota

Applicant

Adv KC Chuene

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for his default in failing to oppose the main application.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim.
  3. 3 Whether condonation for the late filing of the rescission application should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for his default and delay in filing the rescission application. The reason advanced, namely awaiting taxation of invoices, was rejected as fallacious since the applicant was properly served and had filed a notice of opposition but failed to deliver an answering affidavit. The applicant did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or prospects of success, as he admitted owing the fees for nearly five years and did not query the invoices at any relevant time. The alleged agreement to pay after case completion was unsupported and unexplained. The court held that taxation was not required before payment and that the...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.