South Africa Case Law

Precision Towing (Pty) Ltd t/a Precision Tow-In v Hanekom (101450/2023)

Precision Towing (Pty) Ltd t/a Precision Tow-In v Hanekom (101450/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 14 (13 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

101450/2023

Judge

T E Joyini

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving the requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or at common law. Although the applicant was not physically present when the order was granted, its absence was elective, not precluded, as it chose not to oppose the application despite being aware of the proceedings and relief sought. The applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for its default, nor did it demonstrate that the judgment was erroneously granted or that there was any fraudulent misrepresentation or withholding of material facts. The applicant…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42 Application
• Default Judgment
• Absence Of Party
• Costs Award

B.M and Another v M.P and Another (78652/2015)

B.M and Another v M.P and Another (78652/2015) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1243 (25 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

78652/2015

Judge

GN Moshoana

The High Court rescinded an order made on an alleged settlement, finding the applicants’ attorney lacked authority to compromise the case.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Authority Of Attorney
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Settlement Agreement
• Absence Of Party
• Rescission-of-judgment

Van der Merwe v Engelbrecht (2415/18)

Van der Merwe v Engelbrecht (2415/18) [2022] ZANCHC 40 (3 August 2022)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2415/18

Judge

Moses

The Northern Cape High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal, finding no reasonable prospects of success and no other compelling reason to hear it.

• Leave To Appeal
• Jurisdiction
• Absence Of Party
• Reasonable Prospects Of Success
• Leave-to-appeal
• Civil-procedure

Pioneer Foods v CCMA (C 265/10)

Pioneer Foods v CCMA (C 265/10) [2011] ZALCCT 7; [2011] 8 BLLR 771 (LC) (11 March 2011)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C 265/10

Judge

Steenkamp

Section 191(5A) of the LRA is peremptory in requiring the commissioner to commence arbitration immediately after certifying that the dispute remains unresolved if no party objects to con-arb. The commissioner does not have discretion to adjourn before commencing arbitration, but retains discretion to adjourn after commencement for fairness. In this case, the commissioner satisfied himself that proper notice was given and proceeded in absentia. However, he failed to consider a request for postponement made by the employer's representative, which was unreasonable given the employer's bona fide…

Source excerpt

• Unfair Dismissal
• Con Arbitration
• Absence Of Party
• Postponement Of Arbitration
• Commissioner Discretion

Mohammed Ebrahim t/a Mitchell's Plain Fish Wholesalers v Nexclo No 28 CC (15175/2008)

Mohammed Ebrahim t/a Mitchell's Plain Fish Wholesalers v Nexclo No 28 CC (15175/2008) [2010] ZAWCHC 500 (18 October 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15175/2008

Judge

Fortuin

High Court rescinded summary judgment entered in the applicant’s absence, finding the order was erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a) and granting leave to oppose.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Uniform Rules
• Absence Of Party
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Summary-judgment

Relyant Retail Ltd t/a Bears Furnishers v Dell NO and Others (JR1076/06)

Relyant Retail Ltd t/a Bears Furnishers v Dell NO and Others (JR1076/06) [2007] ZALCJHB 19 (11 October 2007)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR1076/06

Judge

R D Hendricks

The court found that the first respondent acted unreasonably in refusing to grant a postponement despite being notified that both parties had agreed to it. The refusal constituted a gross irregularity, and the applicant's absence was reasonably explained. The recission ruling was therefore incorrect, and the award should have been rescinded. The matter must be remitted for a hearing de novo before a different commissioner. Costs are awarded against the third respondent due to his conduct in proceeding with the matter despite consenting to a postponement.

Source excerpt

• Recission Of Award
• Postponement Of Arbitration
• Gross Irregularity
• Absence Of Party
• Costs Order