Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
I.L.L v L.V.H and Others (2807/2022) [2023] ZAECQBHC 54 (26 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed exceptions to particulars of claim, finding the pleading sufficiently alleged a cause of action against all defendants.
Limbada and Another v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd v Limbada and Others (50016/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 652 (8 September 2015)
The court found that the applicants were represented at the hearing and that the judgment was not granted in their absence, thus Rule 31(2)(b) and Rule 42(1)(a) do not apply. The applicants failed to show good cause for rescission of the entire judgment, as their explanation for default was insufficient and they admitted receiving the payments. However, the court accepted that the applicants had repaid R1 million each, which was not disclosed in the liquidators' affidavits and was undisputed. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant partial rescission of the judgment to the ex…
Source excerpt
Theba and Others, Bhana and Others; Essay and Others; Bhana and Others v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others (73173/2014; 73174/2014; 73175/2014, 73763/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1000 (8 September 2015)
The High Court dismissed rescission applications arising from repayments made by Aurora while insolvent, finding no valid default explanation and no basis to disturb judgment.
Theba and Others; Bhana and Others; Essay and Others; Bhana and Others v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others (73173/2014; 73174/2014; 73175/2014; 73763/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 695 (7 September 2015)
Rescission applications were dismissed after the court found no adequate default explanation and no real basis to dispute Aurora’s insolvency.
Lemottee v Marais [2007] ZAGPHC 378; 59/06/01 (28 February 2007)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish any grounds under Rule 42(1) or common law for rescission of the summary judgment. There was no evidence of fraud, Justus error, or exceptional circumstances, nor was the judgment granted as a result of a mistake common to the parties. The applicant's absence was due to a misunderstanding, but this did not constitute a valid basis for rescission. The court emphasized that the appropriate remedy for the applicant is to seek leave to appeal from the judge who granted the summary judgment. Consequently, the application for rescission was dis…
Source excerpt
Explore more
