South African Revenue Services v Mhlongo, In re Mhlongo v South African Revenue Services (J 1915/09) [2012] ZALCD 4 (2 February 2012)

South African Revenue Services v Mhlongo, In re Mhlongo v South African Revenue Services (J 1915/09) [2012] ZALCD 4 (2 February 2012)

The court found that the respondent's absence at the hearing was due to its own negligence in providing an incorrect fax number and perpetuating the error in subsequent filings. There was no procedural irregularity or error on the part of the court in granting the default judgment, as the notice of set down was served on the fax number provided by the respondent's attorneys. Consequently, the judgment was not erroneously granted. The respondent was therefore required to show good prospects of success in defending the main application. Upon review of the affidavits and evidence, the court determined that the respondent failed to follow its own disciplinary code and procedure in dismissing...

Citation
[2012] ZALCD 4
Parties
Applicant: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Charlotte Connie Mhlongo
Court
Labour Court Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2012
Case Number
J 1915/09
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Following Absence at Hearing; Determination of Whether Judgment Was Erroneously Granted and Whether Respondent Showed Prospects of Success.
Outcome
Application for rescission refused with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
D H Gush
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Disciplinary Code and Procedure, Unlawful Dismissal, Procedural Irregularity
Labour Law Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Disciplinary Code and Procedure Unlawful Dismissal Procedural Irregularity

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

South African Revenue Services

Applicant

Charlotte Connie Mhlongo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Following Absence at Hearing; Determination of Whether Judgment Was Erroneously Granted and Whether Respondent Showed Prospects of Success.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment granted in favour of the applicant was erroneously granted in the absence of the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent established good prospects of success in defending the main application if rescission were granted.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's dismissal of the applicant complied with its own disciplinary code and procedure.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's absence at the hearing was due to its own negligence in providing an incorrect fax number and perpetuating the error in subsequent filings. There was no procedural irregularity or error on the part of the court in granting the default judgment, as the notice of set down was served on the fax number provided by the respondent's attorneys. Consequently, the judgment was not erroneously granted. The respondent was therefore required to show good prospects of success in defending the main application. Upon review of the affidavits and evidence, the court determined that the respondent failed to follow its own disciplinary code and procedure in dismissing...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission refused with costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent’s application for the rescission of the judgment granted in favour of the applicant on 9 June 2010 is refused.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the applicant’s costs on an attorney and client scale.