Tsantsabane Local Municipality v Mosegedi and Associates (Pty) Ltd (800/2014) [2019] ZANCHC 9 (15 March 2019)

Tsantsabane Local Municipality v Mosegedi and Associates (Pty) Ltd (800/2014) [2019] ZANCHC 9 (15 March 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its default, as the information necessary to draft a plea had been available since 2014. The applicant's claim that the respondent's delay in filing the declaration made it impossible to consult with relevant individuals was not credible, especially given the existence of a draft plea and counterclaim prepared in 2017. The applicant did not play open cards with the court and failed to identify the individuals who allegedly assisted in preparing the application. On the merits, the applicant did not establish a bona fide defence, as the respondent had rectified the issues with the storm water drainage system...

Citation
[2019] ZANCHC 9
Parties
Applicant: Tsantsabane Local Municipality; Respondent: Mosegedi and Associates (PTY) LTD
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 2019
Case Number
800/2014
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Under Rule 31(2)(b) and Common Law
Outcome
Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
Williams
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Contractual Dispute, Professional Fees
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Contractual Dispute Professional Fees

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

Parties

Tsantsabane Local Municipality

Applicant

Mosegedi and Associates (PTY) LTD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment Under Rule 31(2)(b) and Common Law

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for its default.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has a bona fide defence to the respondent's claim for professional fees.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for its default, as the information necessary to draft a plea had been available since 2014. The applicant's claim that the respondent's delay in filing the declaration made it impossible to consult with relevant individuals was not credible, especially given the existence of a draft plea and counterclaim prepared in 2017. The applicant did not play open cards with the court and failed to identify the individuals who allegedly assisted in preparing the application. On the merits, the applicant did not establish a bona fide defence, as the respondent had rectified the issues with the storm water drainage system...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of judgment is dismissed with costs.