South African Revenue Services v Mhlongo (JA115/2013) [2015] ZALAC 3 (12 March 2015)

South African Revenue Services v Mhlongo (JA115/2013) [2015] ZALAC 3 (12 March 2015)

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant was not in wilful default, as the failure to appear was caused by a typographical error in the fax number provided by its attorneys, resulting in the notice of set-down being sent to the wrong number. The court held that the appellant had provided a reasonable explanation for its default and demonstrated prospects of success on the merits, as the respondent had allegedly absconded and failed to return to work despite repeated requests. The interests of justice required that the issues between the parties be ventilated in court, and accordingly, the default judgment should be rescinded.

Citation
[2015] ZALAC 3
Parties
Appellant: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Charlotte Connie Mhlongo
Court
Labour Appeal Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 March 2015
Case Number
JA115/2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; default judgment rescinded.
Judges
Waglay, Dlodlo, Setiloane
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Unfair Dismissal, Prospects of Success
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Unfair Dismissal Prospects of Success

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Revenue Services

Appellant

Charlotte Connie Mhlongo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Refusal of Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment granted against the employer should be rescinded.
  2. 2 Whether the employer was in wilful default for failing to appear at the hearing.
  3. 3 Whether the employer demonstrated good prospects of success on the merits.

Ratio Decidendi

The Labour Appeal Court found that the appellant was not in wilful default, as the failure to appear was caused by a typographical error in the fax number provided by its attorneys, resulting in the notice of set-down being sent to the wrong number. The court held that the appellant had provided a reasonable explanation for its default and demonstrated prospects of success on the merits, as the respondent had allegedly absconded and failed to return to work despite repeated requests. The interests of justice required that the issues between the parties be ventilated in court, and accordingly, the default judgment should be rescinded.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; default judgment rescinded.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds and the court a quo’s order is altered to read: 'Default judgment granted on 9 June 2010 in favour of the Respondent is hereby rescinded.'
  • There shall be no order as to costs.