Naidoo v Pandaram (AR 462/09)
Naidoo v Pandaram (AR 462/09) [2009] ZAKZPHC 63 (23 November 2009)
The magistrate erred in refusing the appellant's attorney the right of audience, resulting in the appellant being absent for purposes of rescission and default judgment. The appellant was entitled to rely on his attorney for representation, and the absence of a formal notice of appointment did not justify denial of representation. The appellant provided a satisfactory explanation for his default, and the defences raised were valid and bona fide. The magistrate's decision to grant default judgment without evidence on quantum was also questionable, but the appeal succeeded on the primary ground…
Source excerpt
- Rescission Of Default Judgment
- Right Of Legal Representation
- Default Judgment Requirements
- Bona Fide Defence