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
Nkoenyane v ABSA Bank Limited (50924/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 804 (15 August 2024)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application, holding that service at the chosen domicilium was valid, the summons was properly signed, and no bona fide defence was shown.
Fenceit Manufacturers v Woodcity Express Witbank (Pty) Ltd (2336/2019) [2023] ZAMPMHC 29 (11 September 2023)
The court found that service of the main application was not effected at the applicant's chosen domicilium citandi, as required by Rule 4 and the contract between the parties. Service at the registered address was ineffective, as the person served was not a responsible employee and professed no knowledge of the applicant. The respondent was aware of the applicant's principal place of business and its legal representatives but chose not to serve the application at those addresses or notify the legal representatives. This conduct suggested an intention to prevent the applicant from becoming awa…
Source excerpt
Malvern Trading CC v Absa Bank Ltd (2021/50947) [2023] ZAGPJHC 541; 2024 (1) SA 478 (GJ) (23 May 2023)
The court held that service of process at the registered office of a close corporation is valid, irrespective of the corporation's physical presence at that address. The Close Corporations Act and Uniform Rules of Court provide for service at the registered office, and the rationale is to ensure certainty and accessibility for third parties. The choice of a domicilium citandi does not preclude other lawful methods of service unless the agreement expressly limits service to that address. Jurisdiction is conferred on the court by the location of the registered office, and the dual jurisdiction…
Source excerpt
Mathome Training Development (Pty) Ltd v Finsch Diamond Mine Training Center and Another (424/2019) [2022] ZANCHC 8 (25 February 2022)
The High Court held that summons served at a chosen postbox domicilium interrupted prescription, and dismissed the special plea with costs.
Sithole and Another v Astfin Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Another (3176/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 397 (21 August 2019)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a prior order, finding no error, no proper explanation for a long delay, and valid service at the chosen domicilium.
Firstrand Bank Limited v Vorster N.O and Others (M150/2018) [2018] ZANWHC 78 (13 December 2018)
The court dismissed jurisdiction and NCA objections, held the trust was properly represented by three trustees, and granted judgment for the bank with costs.
Harbor Pointing CC v Absa Bank Ltd (13117/12) [2016] ZAGPPHC 891 (23 September 2016)
The High Court rescinded a default judgment against Harbor Pointing CC after finding the summons were not properly served at the chosen domicilium address.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Davenport N.O. and Others (847/2010) [2015] ZAECGHC 113 (27 October 2015)
High Court judgment enforcing three credit claims after finding valid National Credit Act notices and dismissing the defendants’ attempt to reopen their case.
Sapphire Lounge CC and Another v Firstrand Bank Ltd (45848/2014) [2015] ZAGPPHC 670 (25 September 2015)
The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the default judgment was erroneously granted. Service of summons was effected at the chosen domicilium addresses as stipulated in the agreements, and no valid amendment of those addresses was made in accordance with the non-variation clauses. The communications relied upon by the applicants did not constitute proper notice of change of domicilium, nor were they signed by both parties. The existence of a defence on the merits is irrelevant to rescission under rule 42(1)(a), as established by precedent. The court rejected the argume…
Source excerpt
Amcoal Colliers Ltd. v Truter (128/88) [1989] ZASCA 99; [1990] 1 All SA 248 (A) (7 September 1989)
The court held that notice exercising an option was validly delivered at the chosen contractual address, even though the respondent was absent.
Explore more
