Halle v Downs and Another (AR111/23)
Halle v Downs and Another (AR111/23) [2024] ZAKZPHC 128 (30 August 2024)
The court held that the appellant failed to establish that the judgment was void ab origine or obtained by fraud or mistake common to the parties. The settlement agreement was properly recorded, and the requirements for judgment under rule 27(9) were met. The appellant was represented by counsel when judgment was granted, so it was not a default judgment. The appellant did not provide proof that the judgment debt, interest, and costs were paid in full, nor did she apply for condonation for late filing. The claims for collection commission above 10% were justified due to VAT, and while compoun…
Source excerpt
- Rescission Of Judgment
- Magistrates Court Rules
- Settlement Agreement Enforcement
- Condonation
- Compound Interest
- Collection Commission