Sithole and Another v Astfin Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Another (3176/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 397 (21 August 2019)

Sithole and Another v Astfin Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Another (3176/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 397 (21 August 2019)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any error on the part of Justice Maumela and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in bringing the rescission application. The delay of almost one and a half years indicated a lack of bona fides and seriousness in pursuing the application. Furthermore, the defence regarding improper service was rejected, as service was effected at the address chosen by the applicants as their domicilium citandi, and they had not taken any steps to change it. Accordingly, the application for rescission was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 397
Parties
Applicant: Goodwill Sikhukhula Sithole; Applicant: Solid Glory Security and Consultant CC; Respondent: Astfin Gauteng (Pty) Ltd t/a Assetfin; Respondent: Sheriff Wonderboom
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 August 2019
Case Number
3176/2016
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
Andrews
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 31, Service of Process, Domicilium Citandi
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Uniform Rules of Court Rule 31 Service of Process Domicilium Citandi

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Goodwill Sikhukhula Sithole

Applicant

Solid Glory Security and Consultant CC

Applicant

Astfin Gauteng (Pty) Ltd t/a Assetfin

Respondent

Sheriff Wonderboom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Application for Rescission of Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established an error on the part of Justice Maumela justifying rescission of judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of almost one and a half years in launching the rescission application was justified.
  3. 3 Whether service at the chosen domicilium citandi was proper and valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish any error on the part of Justice Maumela and did not provide a reasonable explanation for the significant delay in bringing the rescission application. The delay of almost one and a half years indicated a lack of bona fides and seriousness in pursuing the application. Furthermore, the defence regarding improper service was rejected, as service was effected at the address chosen by the applicants as their domicilium citandi, and they had not taken any steps to change it. Accordingly, the application for rescission was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the order of Justice Maumela dated 7 April 2016 is dismissed with costs.