Zanokhanyo Trading CC and Another v ABSA Bank Limited (3986/2023) [2025] ZAECMKHC 21 (27 February 2025)

Zanokhanyo Trading CC and Another v ABSA Bank Limited (3986/2023) [2025] ZAECMKHC 21 (27 February 2025)

The court found that service of summons was properly effected at the applicants' chosen domicilium addresses, as evidenced by the returns of service. The respondent was procedurally entitled to the default judgment, and Rule 42(1)(a) did not apply. The applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their default, as they did not engage with the returns of service or explain why the summons would not have been seen at the relevant premises. Furthermore, the applicants did not disclose a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The payments made did not extinguish the arrears, and at the time of judgment, sufficient arrears existed to justify cancellation of the agreement and...

Citation
[2025] ZAECMKHC 21
Parties
Applicant: Zanokhanyo Trading CC; Applicant: Slier Ellis Zukile Mbelani; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 February 2025
Case Number
3986/2023
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution and Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on Scale A.
Judges
J.M Roberson
Legal Topics
Default Judgment Rescission, Stay of Execution, Instalment Sale Agreement, Suretyship, National Credit Act Compliance
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Default Judgment Rescission Stay of Execution Instalment Sale Agreement Suretyship National Credit Act Compliance

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 7
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Zanokhanyo Trading CC

Applicant

Slier Ellis Zukile Mbelani

Applicant

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Stay of Execution and Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the default judgment was erroneously granted without proper service of summons on the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have shown sufficient cause for rescission under common law, including a reasonable explanation for default and a bona fide defence with prospects of success.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent was procedurally entitled to the judgment and execution of the warrant of delivery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that service of summons was properly effected at the applicants' chosen domicilium addresses, as evidenced by the returns of service. The respondent was procedurally entitled to the default judgment, and Rule 42(1)(a) did not apply. The applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their default, as they did not engage with the returns of service or explain why the summons would not have been seen at the relevant premises. Furthermore, the applicants did not disclose a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The payments made did not extinguish the arrears, and at the time of judgment, sufficient arrears existed to justify cancellation of the agreement and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on Scale A.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on Scale A.