South Africa Case Law

Nemugumon and Others v Thabatshweu Housing Company (Soc) Ltd t/a Polokwane Housing Association and Another (10206/2023)

Nemugumon and Others v Thabatshweu Housing Company (Soc) Ltd t/a Polokwane Housing Association and Another (10206/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 39 (18 February 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

10206/2023

Judge

Mathabathe

The High Court dismissed 33 rescission applications against eviction orders, holding that Rule 31 does not apply to motion proceedings and no Rule 42 or common-law basis was shown.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Eviction Proceedings
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Default Judgment
• Common Law Rescission
• Rescission-of-judgment

Jonker and Another v Land and Agriculture Development Bank of South Africa and Others (3159/2020)

Jonker and Another v Land and Agriculture Development Bank of South Africa and Others (3159/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 246 (16 August 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3159/2020

Judge

Reinders

The applicants sought to set aside a final liquidation order for Jonker Products CC, alleging the Land Bank lacked locus standi and misrepresented the facts.

• Setting Aside Liquidation Order
• Locus Standi
• Intentional Misrepresentation
• Common Law Rescission
• Creditor Rights
• Liquidation-order

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mlamuleli (A22/2022)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Mlamuleli (A22/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 46; 2024 (1) SACR 435 (FB) (14 February 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

A22/2022

Judges

C Van Zyl, S Chesiwe

The court held that the High Court may rescind a restraint order granted under section 26(1) of POCA on recognised common law grounds, provided those grounds existed at the time the order was made. Section 26(10) of POCA also permits rescission on specified statutory grounds arising after the order. The respondent's attorneys were present in court but unaware of proceedings in chambers, resulting in default not attributable to wilful neglect. The respondent presented a bona fide defence with prospects of success, namely that she did not receive any benefit from the alleged offences. The court…

Source excerpt

• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Restraint Order Rescission
• Default Judgment
• Costs Discretion
• Common Law Rescission

Fasser v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (2020/31972)

Fasser v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited (2020/31972) [2024] ZAGPJHC 113 (2 February 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/31972

Judge

DT v R Du Plessis

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind summary judgment, holding that the court had already been aware the property was the applicant’s primary residence.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Summary Judgment
• Primary Residence
• Rule 46a
• Common Law Rescission
• Rescission-of-judgment

HR Computek (Pty) Ltd v Dr WAA Gouws (Johannesburg) (Pty) Ltd and Others (2019/38193)

HR Computek (Pty) Ltd v Dr WAA Gouws (Johannesburg) (Pty) Ltd and Others (2019/38193) [2023] ZAGPJHC 844; 2023 (6) SA 268 (GJ) (12 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/38193

Judge

P Coppin

The court held that the applicant company, through its sole director, was entitled to bring an application for rescission of the winding-up orders granted in its absence, without the co-operation of the liquidators. The reasoning in Praetor and Storti was endorsed, confirming that directors retain residual powers to act for the company in such circumstances. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Ward did not preclude such applications, and dicta to the contrary in Impac and Ragavan are incorrect or obiter. The opposition by the first respondent was found to be unauthorised, as the resolution relied…

Source excerpt

• Company Liquidation
• Locus Standi
• Board Residual Powers
• Resolution Authorisation
• Common Law Rescission
• Rule 42 Application

Sekgala v Body Corporate of Petra Nera (08951/2017)

Sekgala v Body Corporate of Petra Nera (08951/2017) [2023] ZAGPJHC 318 (13 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

08951/2017

Judge

M Engelbrecht

The court found that Mr Sekgala was not absent from the proceedings leading to the provisional sequestration order of 8 September 2020, as he was present and made submissions. The requirement of absence under Rule 42(1)(a) was therefore not met. Furthermore, the order was not erroneously sought or granted, as Lamont J was aware of the relevant facts and acted to ensure compliance with section 11(1) of the Insolvency Act by providing Mr Sekgala an opportunity to show cause. Even if the requirements for rescission were met, the court would not exercise its discretion in favour of rescission due…

Source excerpt

• Sequestration
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Uniform Rule 42
• Body Corporate Liability
• Standing
• Common Law Rescission

Blue Crane Route Municipality v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund (CA 221/2021)

Blue Crane Route Municipality v Municipal Workers Retirement Fund (CA 221/2021) [2023] ZAECMKHC 4 (24 January 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

CA 221/2021

Judges

N Ntlama-Makhanya, NG Beshe, JE Smith

The High Court dismissed a municipality’s appeal against refusal of rescission, holding it had not shown a bona fide defence or grounds under Rule 42.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Pension Fund Rules
• Wilful Default
• Common Law Rescission
• Interpretation Of Fund Rules
• Rescission-of-judgment

Le Roux v Bekker and Another (1445/2020)

Le Roux v Bekker and Another (1445/2020) [2022] ZAMPMHC 21 (3 November 2022)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1445/2020

Judge

Langa

The court found that the default judgment was erroneously granted in the presence of the applicant, who was denied a hearing despite being physically present and having his presence made known to the court. The applicant was not afforded an opportunity to address the court, which constituted an irregularity and a violation of his constitutional right of access to courts. The applicant provided a reasonable explanation for his default, having received the application only three court days before the hearing and lacking resources to instruct a lawyer. The court further held that joint and sever…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Bona Fide Defence
• Joint And Several Liability
• Access To Court
• Common Law Rescission

Scheffer and Another v Office Installations (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (28465/2011)

Scheffer and Another v Office Installations (SA) (Pty) Ltd and Another (28465/2011) [2022] ZAGPPHC 790 (14 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

28465/2011

Judge

Mazibuko

The court found that the amended order was granted in error and in the absence of the applicants. The application to rectify was properly opposed, the dies for filing the answering affidavit had not lapsed, and the application was never enrolled for hearing. The order was made in chambers without the applicants' knowledge, and the rectification of amounts was already the subject of a cross-appeal. These procedural irregularities were not brought to the attention of the judge who granted the order. Accordingly, the requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a), Rule 42(1)(b), or the common l…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Common Law Rescission
• Procedural Irregularity

Jawaharlal v Celaglo (Pty) Ltd and Others (15531/2021)

Jawaharlal v Celaglo (Pty) Ltd and Others (15531/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 496 (28 June 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

15531/2021

Judge

Phooko

The High Court rescinded a final liquidation order, finding the applicant was absent through procedural irregularity and that the debt was genuinely disputed.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Company Creditor Rights
• Uniform Rules Rule 42
• Common Law Rescission
• Companies Act Section 345