South African Revenue Services v Mhlongo; In re: Mhlongo v South African Revenue Services (J1915/09) [2012] ZALCJHB 142 (2 February 2012)

South African Revenue Services v Mhlongo; In re: Mhlongo v South African Revenue Services (J1915/09) [2012] ZALCJHB 142 (2 February 2012)

The court found that the default judgment was not granted erroneously, as the respondent's failure to appear was due to its own negligence in providing and perpetuating an incorrect fax number. There was no procedural error or irregularity in the granting of the judgment. Consequently, the application for rescission had to be considered under Rule 16A(1)(b), requiring the respondent to show good prospects of success. The respondent failed to establish any prospects of successfully defending the applicant's claim, as it did not comply with its own disciplinary code and procedure, failed to communicate properly with the applicant, and ignored correspondence from her attorneys. The...

Citation
[2012] ZALCJHB 142
Parties
Applicant: South African Revenue Services; Respondent: Charlotte Connie Mhlongo
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2012
Case Number
J1915/09
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission refused with costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
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 11 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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the default judgment granted erroneously in the absence of the respondent.
  2. 2 Is the respondent required to show good prospects of success for rescission under Rule 16A(1)(b).
  3. 3 Did the respondent comply with its own disciplinary code and procedure in dismissing the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the default judgment was not granted erroneously, as the respondent's failure to appear was due to its own negligence in providing and perpetuating an incorrect fax number. There was no procedural error or irregularity in the granting of the judgment. Consequently, the application for rescission had to be considered under Rule 16A(1)(b), requiring the respondent to show good prospects of success. The respondent failed to establish any prospects of successfully defending the applicant's claim, as it did not comply with its own disciplinary code and procedure, failed to communicate properly with the applicant, and ignored correspondence from her attorneys. The...

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.