Matjokana v Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd (66439/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 630 (23 October 2020)

Matjokana v Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd (66439/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 630 (23 October 2020)

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application and did not establish a bona fide defence with prospects of success. Service of the summons was properly effected at the applicant's place of residence after the chosen domicilium was vacated. Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act does not apply as the lease agreement was between juristic persons, and there was no consensual cancellation of the contract. The magistrates' court action was never served and thus did not render the high court action lis pendens. The point in limine regarding the authority of the deponent to the respondent's affidavit is without merit. Accordingly,...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 630
Parties
Applicant: Nyiko Reginald Benadid Matjokana; Respondent: Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 October 2020
Case Number
66439/2017
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs.
Judges
De Vos
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Proper Service, Suretyship, Consumer Protection Act, Lis Pendens
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Rescission of Judgment Proper Service Suretyship Consumer Protection Act Lis Pendens

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nyiko Reginald Benadid Matjokana

Applicant

Reit Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether service of the summons was properly effected on the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the lease agreement was properly cancelled under section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act, 2008.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application and did not establish a bona fide defence with prospects of success. Service of the summons was properly effected at the applicant's place of residence after the chosen domicilium was vacated. Section 14 of the Consumer Protection Act does not apply as the lease agreement was between juristic persons, and there was no consensual cancellation of the contract. The magistrates' court action was never served and thus did not render the high court action lis pendens. The point in limine regarding the authority of the deponent to the respondent's affidavit is without merit. Accordingly,...

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission is dismissed with costs.