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
Viljoen v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (16593/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 612 (13 June 2025)
Default judgment in a credit enforcement matter was rescinded because the section 129 notice under the National Credit Act was not properly delivered.
Zanokhanyo Trading CC and Another v ABSA Bank Limited (3986/2023) [2025] ZAECMKHC 21 (27 February 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default judgment and stay execution, finding proper service, no good explanation for default, and no bona fide defence.
Maluti-A-Phofung Local Municipality v Kill Crime Security Service (Pty) Ltd and Others (2237/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 24 (30 January 2025)
The court found that the service level agreements and acknowledgment of debt were concluded in violation of section 217 of the Constitution and relevant procurement legislation, as they were not subjected to a competitive bidding process. The municipal manager was unauthorized and conflicted in concluding the acknowledgment of debt. The agreements are constitutionally invalid. The default judgment was granted in the applicant's absence due to deliberate failure to defend, orchestrated by conflicted officials. The application before the court is a legality review, not a PAJA review. In terms o…
Source excerpt
Williams v Shackleton Credit Management (Pty) Ltd (10771/2020) [2023] ZAWCHC 279; 2024 (3) SA 234 (WCC) (10 November 2023)
The court held that the default judgment was erroneously sought and granted because the respondent failed to establish delivery of the section 129 notice to the relevant post office as required by section 129(7) of the National Credit Act and the Constitutional Court’s interpretation in Sebola and Kubyana. The absence of proper delivery precluded the registrar from granting default judgment. Under rule 42(1)(a), once it is established that judgment was erroneously granted, rescission must follow, and the absence of a substantive defence is irrelevant. The applicant’s other defences—prescripti…
Source excerpt
Dainfern Homeowners Association v Roodt and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 282; 82688/2017 (5 May 2023)
The court dismissed a late rescission application and declared a Dainfern home specially executable under Rule 46A, with a 60-day suspension and reserve price.
Lehana v Nedbank Limited (21562/21) [2022] ZAGPJHC 964 (1 December 2022)
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with the peremptory requirements of section 129 of the National Credit Act, as the applicant did not receive the required notice due to an error on the part of the respondent. The statutory conditions for instituting legal proceedings under section 129 were not fulfilled, rendering the default judgment susceptible to rescission. The respondent's reliance on earlier Constitutional Court judgments was misplaced, as subsequent decisions clarified the strict requirements for notice delivery. The court held that, since the default judgment had a…
Source excerpt
Kgoste v 4 Seasons Logistics CC (9657/2022) [2022] ZAWCHC 229 (9 November 2022)
The court refused rescission of a default judgment and placed 4 Seasons Logistics CC into provisional liquidation for inability to pay its debts.
Blue Crane Route Municipality v South African National Parks Board (953/2021) [2022] ZAECMKHC 24 (31 May 2022)
The court found that the defendant's explanation for failing to enter an appearance to defend was poor and almost non-existent, but the defendant presented a reasonably good defence based on section 17(1)(e) of the Municipal Property Rates Act. The plaintiff levied rates on the entire property, whereas the Act only permits rates on parts used for commercial, business, agricultural or residential purposes. The defendant's interpretation of the statute was reasonable and, if correct, would entitle the plaintiff to a much lesser amount than claimed. Balancing the poor explanation for default aga…
Source excerpt
Mystical Ice Trading 50 CC v Rietfontein View Estate (Pty) Ltd (19260/20) [2022] ZAGPPHC 137 (2 February 2022)
The High Court dismissed a rescission bid, found no adequate explanation for default, and declared two non-primary-residence sectional title units executable.
Knoop NO and Another v Vorster NO and Others (46837/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 196 (20 June 2019)
The court found that the default judgment was granted after the commencement of business rescue proceedings, and the statutory moratorium under section 133 of the Companies Act applied, rendering the judgment invalid. The respondents’ argument that the business rescue was an abuse of process was rejected, as the company was in financial distress and the purpose of business rescue is to protect the interests of all creditors. Non-compliance with procedural requirements did not automatically nullify the business rescue; the court must determine whether it is just and equitable to set aside the…
Source excerpt
Explore more
