Slabbert v Brett (1133/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 152 (20 June 2007)

Slabbert v Brett (1133/2006) [2007] ZAECHC 152 (20 June 2007)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and bona fide explanation for his default. The evidence showed that the applicant was not kept completely in the dark by his attorneys, and his own neglect contributed to the default. The absence of an affidavit from the instructing attorney left much unexplained. The delay in bringing the application for rescission was excessive and not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the applicant did not present a defence with real prospects of success, merely referring to an earlier affidavit without elaboration or supporting evidence. The court held that attorney neglect, without a proper explanation, does not justify...

Citation
[2007] ZAECHC 152
Parties
Applicant: Louis Slabbert; Respondent: Alec Brett
Court
High Courts - Eastern Cape
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2007
Case Number
1133/2006
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Striking Out Order
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs, including costs of the postponement of 15 February 2007.
Judges
Jones
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Good Cause Requirement, Attorney Neglect, Rule 31, Rule 42
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Good Cause Requirement Attorney Neglect Rule 31 Rule 42

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

Parties

Louis Slabbert

Applicant

Alec Brett

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment and Striking Out Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment and the order striking out his defence.
  2. 2 Whether attorney neglect constitutes a sufficient explanation for the applicant's default.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has presented a bona fide defence with prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and bona fide explanation for his default. The evidence showed that the applicant was not kept completely in the dark by his attorneys, and his own neglect contributed to the default. The absence of an affidavit from the instructing attorney left much unexplained. The delay in bringing the application for rescission was excessive and not satisfactorily explained. Furthermore, the applicant did not present a defence with real prospects of success, merely referring to an earlier affidavit without elaboration or supporting evidence. The court held that attorney neglect, without a proper explanation, does not justify...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs, including costs of the postponement of 15 February 2007.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs, including the costs of the postponement of 15 February 2007.