Esau v Debtsafe and Others; Shingange v Mare t.a Debt Rescue and Others (85651/2017; 85650/2017)
Esau v Debtsafe and Others; Shingange v Mare t.a Debt Rescue and Others (85651/2017; 85650/2017) [2018] ZAGPPHC 741 (10 April 2018)
The court found that service of the applications by email did not comply with Rule 4(1) and the Practice Manual, as the consents relied upon were generic and not specific to the present proceedings or applicants. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 4(10) and declined to accept email service as sufficient, emphasizing the importance of proper notice and adherence to procedural requirements. However, recognizing that the applicants had made out a proper case for relief and that procedural errors were attributable to their attorneys, the court issued a rule nisi calling upon the respon…
Source excerpt
- Debt Review Termination
- Service Of Process
- Over Indebtedness
- Credit Bureau Status