South Africa Case Law

Minister of Police v Rafiki (2630/2012)

Minister of Police v Rafiki (2630/2012) [2025] ZAGPPHC 323 (25 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2630/2012

Judge

MNGQIBISA-THUSI

The court found that service of the amendment application was properly effected on the State Attorney's office, as evidenced by the date stamp on the notice of set-down and the subsequent delivery of the complete set of papers. The applicant's denial of receipt was not plausible given the documentary evidence and the chronology of events. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the delay in seeking rescission, as it must have become aware of the order by at least 7 March 2022 when the endorsed order and amended answers were served. The application for rescission was there…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Default Order
• Rule 42 Application

Information Officer and Another v Elalini Lodge CC t/a Elalini Projects (47/2022)

Information Officer and Another v Elalini Lodge CC t/a Elalini Projects (47/2022) [2024] ZAECBHC 1 (30 January 2024)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

47/2022

Judge

Cengani-Mbakaza

The court found that the default order granted on 1 March 2022 was erroneously sought and granted because the respondent failed to comply fully with the procedural requirements of PAIA, including the use of prescribed forms for internal appeal and proper disclosure of pending civil proceedings. The respondent's affidavit was incomplete and misleading, and the Minister of Police was improperly cited and served as a respondent. The court held that these errors were material and, had they been disclosed, would have prevented the granting of the default order. Accordingly, the application for res…

Source excerpt

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Order
• Service Of Process
• Internal Appeal Procedure

Rogers v Motortown Western Province CC t/a Motorama (Condonation Ruling) (NCT/279189/2023/75(1)(b) - Rule 34)

Rogers v Motortown Western Province CC t/a Motorama (Condonation Ruling) (NCT/279189/2023/75(1)(b) - Rule 34) [2023] ZANCT 28 (18 September 2023)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/279189/2023/75(1)(b) - Rule 34

Judge

Zodwa Ntuli

The Tribunal found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for the delay in filing his application for leave to refer, which was caused by his lack of understanding of Tribunal processes and the time required to obtain legal assistance. The delay, although substantial, was not due to wilful disregard of the rules. The applicant has exhausted all alternative remedies and has a right to have the dispute heard by the Tribunal, as the matter falls within its mandate under the Consumer Protection Act. The application is unopposed, and the facts alleged by the applicant are deemed admi…

Source excerpt

• Consumer Protection Act
• Condonation
• Leave To Refer
• Default Order
• Good Cause
• Defective Goods

National Consumer Commission v Nu Menu (Pty) Ltd t/a Nu Menu Solutions (NCT/225188/2022/73(2)(b))

National Consumer Commission v Nu Menu (Pty) Ltd t/a Nu Menu Solutions (NCT/225188/2022/73(2)(b)) [2022] ZANCT 41 (19 July 2022)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/225188/2022/73(2)(b)

Judges

D Terblanche, B Dumisa, A Potwana

The Tribunal found Nu Menu’s water desalination system was misrepresented and defective, ordered a refund with interest, and imposed a R50,000 penalty.

• Consumer Protection Act
• Misrepresentation
• Refund Of Purchase Price
• Administrative Penalty
• Default Order
• Consumer-protection-act

Waste Partner Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v FAW Vehicle Manufacturers SA (Pty) Ltd (36802/2019)

Waste Partner Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another v FAW Vehicle Manufacturers SA (Pty) Ltd (36802/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 600 (29 October 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

36802/2019

Judge

Fourie

The applicants were fully aware of the settlement agreement and its conversion into a court order, yet failed to oppose the application and delayed seeking rescission for over eight months without credible explanation. Their conduct demonstrates wilful default and lack of bona fides. The grounds advanced for rescission, including alleged lack of authority and invalidity of the underlying debt, are unsubstantiated and do not meet the stringent requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or common law. The application is an abuse of process intended to frustrate enforcement of clear underta…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Settlement Agreement
• Default Order
• Authority Of Signatory
• Enforcement Of Court Order

National Credit Regulator v Credi Worx (Pty) Ltd (NCT/158468/2020/57(1))

National Credit Regulator v Credi Worx (Pty) Ltd (NCT/158468/2020/57(1)) [2021] ZANCT 29 (10 August 2021)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/158468/2020/57(1)

Judges

L Best, A Potwana, B Dumisa

The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the application documents were adequately served on the Respondent. The Applicant's attempts at service by registered mail and email did not meet the requirements of the Tribunal Rules, as there was no proof that the documents reached the Respondent. The Tribunal relied on the Constitutional Court's decision in Kubyana, which clarified that adequate service requires proof that the notice reached the consumer, not merely that it was sent. As a result, the Tribunal could not grant the default order sought by the Applicant.

Source excerpt

• National Credit Act
• Default Order
• Service Of Process
• Affordability Assessment
• Reckless Credit Granting

National Credit Regulator v Banton (NCT/169271/2020/55(6))

National Credit Regulator v Banton (NCT/169271/2020/55(6)) [2021] ZANCT 14 (11 June 2021)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/169271/2020/55(6)

Judges

A Potwana, M Peenze, D Terblanche

The Tribunal refused the NCR’s default application to enforce a compliance notice against a debt counsellor, finding insufficient evidence on oath for the sought declarations.

• National Credit Act Compliance
• Debt Counselling
• Default Order
• Compliance Notice Enforcement
• National-credit-act
• Compliance-notice

National Credit Regulator v King Side Trading CCt/a Easy Cash (NCT/112959/2018/140(1))

National Credit Regulator v King Side Trading CCt/a Easy Cash (NCT/112959/2018/140(1)) [2019] ZANCT 5 (28 January 2019)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/112959/2018/140(1)

Judges

H Devraj, F Manamela, L Best

The Tribunal postponed a default hearing after finding the applicant had not met earlier directions to verify the correct party and file credible supporting evidence.

• Default Order
• Postponement
• Service Of Documents
• Default-order
• Service-of-documents

Ralph v Auto C Motorworx CC (NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b))

Ralph v Auto C Motorworx CC (NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 77 (4 September 2018)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)

Judge

H Devraj

The Tribunal postponed the matter so the respondent could file and serve a condonation application for a late answering affidavit, failing which default proceedings could follow.

• Default Order
• Condonation Application
• Postponement
• Service Of Documents
• Condonation
• Default-order

Ralph v Auto C Motorworx CC (NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b))

Ralph v Auto C Motorworx CC (NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)) [2018] ZANCT 131 (4 September 2018)

Court

National Consumer Tribunal

Case number

NCT/109285/2018/75(1)(b)

Judge

H Devraj

The Tribunal postponed the matter so the respondent could file and serve a condonation application for a late answering affidavit, with no costs order.

• Postponement
• Condonation Application
• Default Order
• Service Of Documents
• Condonation
• Default-order