Standard Bank of South Africa v Regenergy (Pty) Ltd and Another (2022/060849) [2025] ZAGPJHC 388 (22 April 2025)
Default judgment was refused because the second respondent, joined as guarantor, pleaded a defence that, if accepted, would absolve both herself and Regenergy from liability. The defence of novation and compliance with varied terms constituted a complete answer to the applicant's claim. The court exercised its...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 388
- Parties
- Applicant: Standard Bank of South Africa; Respondent: Regenergy (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Louise Macquest
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2022/060849
- Procedural Posture
- Default Judgment Application / Reasons for Refusal of Default Judgment
- Outcome
- Default judgment refused; reasons for refusal provided.
- Judges
- S D J Wilson
- Legal Topics
- Default Judgment, Joinder of Parties, Novation, Pleading Defences
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Standard Bank of South Africa
Applicant
Regenergy (Pty) Ltd
Respondent
Louise Macquest
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Reasons for Refusal of Default Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether default judgment should be granted against Regenergy (Pty) Ltd when a defence is pleaded by the joined guarantor.
- 2 Whether the existence of a pleaded novation and compliance with varied terms constitutes a complete defence to the applicant's claim.
- 3 Whether the application for written reasons was made within the prescribed time under Rule 49 (1) (c).
Ratio Decidendi
Default judgment was refused because the second respondent, joined as guarantor, pleaded a defence that, if accepted, would absolve both herself and Regenergy from liability. The defence of novation and compliance with varied terms constituted a complete answer to the applicant's claim. The court exercised its discretion to refuse default judgment in circumstances where a substantive defence was apparent on the papers, and the applicant declined to make further submissions. The request for written reasons was made well outside the prescribed period, but the court nevertheless provided reasons for the refusal.
Court Disposition
Default judgment refused; reasons for refusal provided.
Orders
- Default judgment against Regenergy (Pty) Ltd is refused.
- The claim against Regenergy must be dealt with together with the claim against Ms. Macquest.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
35 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE: 22 April 2025
Case No. 2022-060849
In the matter between:
STANDARD BANK OF SOUTH AFRICA
Applicant
and
REGENERGY (PTY) LTD
First Respondent
LOUISE MACQUEST
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
WILSON J:
1 On 6 March 2024, the applicant, Standard Bank, approached me in my unopposed motion court with an application for default judgment on a loan agreement brought against the first respondent, Regenergy. Standard Bank had first approached the registrar for default judgment, but the registrar had referred the application to open court.
2 I refused default judgment because the second respondent, Ms. Macquest, who had been joined as the putative guarantor of Regenergy’s obligations under the loan agreement, had filed a plea setting out a defence which, if accepted, would have absolved Regenergy from liability as well. At paragraphs 20 and 21 of her plea, Ms. Macquest pleaded that the terms of the loan agreement had been novated, and that Regenergy had complied with the varied terms. So, while Regenergy was technically in default, there was a defence apparent on the papers that would have been a complete answer to Standard Bank’s claim against Regenergy.
3 On these facts, I took the view that default judgment could not be granted, and that the claim against Regenergy would have to dealt with together with the claim against Ms. Macquest. I explained my view to Standard Bank’s counsel, Ms. Mashishi, and invited her to make submissions to the contrary, She declined to do so. Accordingly, I exercised my well-known discretion to refuse judgment by default (on which see, for example, Mbonambi v Road Accident Fund [2024] ZAGPPHC 455 (21 May 2024), paragraph 18).
4 I explained my view to Ms. Mashishi in some detail, so as to enable her to convey my reasons for refusing default judgment to her attorney. I also said that I was happy to provide my reasons in writing if they were applied for.
5 On 14 April 2025, well over a year after I refused default judgment, Standard Bank’s attorney applied for my reasons in writing. The year-long delay was neither alluded to nor explained. Strictly speaking, reasons, if required, should have been requested within 10 days of my order (Rule 49 (1) (c)). Standard Bank’s attorney appeared neither to appreciate that this was required nor particularly concerned that it had taken them 13 months to ask for reasons. That, in my view, was unfortunate.
6 Be that as it may, these are my reasons for refusing default judgment.
S D J WILSON
Judge of the High Court
This judgment is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties or their legal representatives by email, by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on Caselines, and by publication of the judgment to the South African Legal Information Institute. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 22 April 2025.
HEARD ON:
6 March 2024
DECIDED ON:
6 March 2024
REASONS REQUESTED: 14 April 2025
REASONS PROVIDED: 22 April 2025
For the Applicant:
K Mashishi
Instructed by Venns Attorneys