Zondo and Another v Nedbank Limited (82048/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 109 (5 March 2018)

Zondo and Another v Nedbank Limited (82048/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 109 (5 March 2018)

The court found that while the applicants may have provided a reasonable explanation for their default, they failed to set out any defence to the respondent's claim. The applicants' assertion that their business had been hijacked and that they needed time to resolve this did not constitute a legal defence to the claim. As the applicants did not meet the requirements of bona fides and a bona fide defence with prospects of success, the application for rescission could not succeed.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 109
Parties
Applicant: Zondo, Elias Maenufikke; Applicant: Zondo, Nthabiseng; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 March 2018
Case Number
82048/2016
Procedural Posture
Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment
Outcome
Application for rescission dismissed with costs, including interpreter's costs.
Judges
A Millar
Legal Topics
Rescission of Judgment, Default Judgment, Service of Process, Bona Fide Defence
Civil Procedure Rescission of Judgment Default Judgment Service of Process Bona Fide Defence

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

Parties

Zondo, Elias Maenufikke

Applicant

Zondo, Nthabiseng

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Rescission Application / Application for Rescission of Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default.
  2. 2 Whether the application for rescission was made bona fide.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have a bona fide defence with prospects of success.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the applicants may have provided a reasonable explanation for their default, they failed to set out any defence to the respondent's claim. The applicants' assertion that their business had been hijacked and that they needed time to resolve this did not constitute a legal defence to the claim. As the applicants did not meet the requirements of bona fides and a bona fide defence with prospects of success, the application for rescission could not succeed.

Court Disposition

Application for rescission dismissed with costs, including interpreter's costs.

Orders

  • The application for rescission of the judgment granted on 14 July 2015 is dismissed with costs on the scale as between party and party, including the costs of the interpreter Mr. M Mogaladi.