Vellem v Nedbank Limited (18821/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 310 (4 May 2018)

Vellem v Nedbank Limited (18821/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 310 (4 May 2018)

The applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for her default and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The court found that all relevant documents were personally served on the applicant, and her claim of ignorance was not credible. No error, ambiguity, or mistake as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(a), (b), or (c) was established. Furthermore, the applicant failed to join the third party purchaser of the property, rendering the application defective. The requirements for rescission under Rule 42 and common law were not met, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 310
Parties
Applicant: Nolusindiso Vellem; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 May 2018
Case Number
18821/2016
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Hearing and Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission of default judgment dismissed with costs.
Judges
T Tonjeni
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42, Joinder of Parties
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Uniform Rules of Court Rule 42 Joinder of Parties

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nolusindiso Vellem

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Hearing and Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has shown good cause for rescission of the default judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements of Rule 42(1)(a), (b), or (c) of the Uniform Rules of Court are met.
  3. 3 Whether failure to join the third party purchaser of the property affects the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to provide an acceptable explanation for her default and did not demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The court found that all relevant documents were personally served on the applicant, and her claim of ignorance was not credible. No error, ambiguity, or mistake as contemplated by Rule 42(1)(a), (b), or (c) was established. Furthermore, the applicant failed to join the third party purchaser of the property, rendering the application defective. The requirements for rescission under Rule 42 and common law were not met, and the application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission of default judgment dismissed with costs.

Orders

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