Waste Re (Pty) Ltd and Another v Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC (1078/2019) [2022] ZANCHC 63 (30 September 2022)

Waste Re (Pty) Ltd and Another v Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC (1078/2019) [2022] ZANCHC 63 (30 September 2022)

The court found that the order of 6 December 2019 was a rule nisi, not a final order, and that subsequent proceedings were not suspended by the application for leave to appeal, as Section 18(2) of the Superior Courts Act applies to interlocutory orders. The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and sufficient...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZANCHC 63
Parties
Applicant: Waste Re (Pty) Ltd [formerly Waste Beneficiation (Pty) Ltd]; Applicant: Khothatso Christopher Moloi; Respondent: Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 September 2022
Case Number
1078/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Judgment on Interlocutory and Rescission Applications
Outcome
Both the rescission and interlocutory applications are dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
Eillert
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Rule Nisi, Default Judgment, Costs Punitive, Interlocutory Orders
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Rule Nisi Default Judgment Costs Punitive Interlocutory Orders

Source-derived case record

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 6 Authorities cited 18 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Waste Re (Pty) Ltd [formerly Waste Beneficiation (Pty) Ltd]

Applicant

Khothatso Christopher Moloi

Applicant

Recycling and Economic Development Initiative of South Africa NPC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Judgment on Interlocutory and Rescission Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the order of 8 May 2020 confirming Part B of the main application should be rescinded under Uniform Rule 42(1)(a) or common law grounds.
  2. 2 Whether the order of 6 December 2019 was a rule nisi or a final order.
  3. 3 Whether the application for leave to appeal automatically suspended further proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the order of 6 December 2019 was a rule nisi, not a final order, and that subsequent proceedings were not suspended by the application for leave to appeal, as Section 18(2) of the Superior Courts Act applies to interlocutory orders. The applicants failed to provide a reasonable and sufficient explanation for their default of appearance on 8 May 2020, as they did not act diligently to obtain the relevant court orders and relied on opportunistic excuses. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate a bona fide defence with any prospect of success, as the issue of ownership of the equipment had already been determined against them and no new facts were presented. The...

Court Disposition

Both the rescission and interlocutory applications are dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The applicants' application dated 11 May 2020 against the order of this court under case number 1078/2019, issued on 17 May 2019, is dismissed.
  • The applicants' application dated 30 June 2020 for rescission of the order of this court under case number 1078/2019 issued on 8 May 2020 is dismissed.