South Africa Case Law

Sakata v Bayport Securitisation (Pty) Ltd, Sakata v Bayport Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (CA134/2017, CA135/2017)

Sakata v Bayport Securitisation (Pty) Ltd, Sakata v Bayport Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (CA134/2017, CA135/2017) [2017] ZAECBHC 18 (16 November 2017)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Bhisho

Case number

CA134/2017, CA135/2017

Judges

Rugunanan, Shartle

The High Court found that the magistrate erred in upholding the respondent's point in limine and dismissing the rescission application. The appellant was not properly notified of the judgment by registered mail as required by section 58(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act, and there was no proof of postage. The written consent to judgment was not informed, as the appellant was not made aware of the respondent's cause of action. The supporting affidavit for the request for judgment was deficient, lacking proper quantification of the debt and failing to lodge the original credit agreement. The ju…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Court Rescission
• Consent To Judgment
• National Credit Act Compliance
• Default Judgment
• Proof Of Service
• Good Cause For Rescission

D v V (A3062/2016)

D v V (A3062/2016) [2017] ZAGPJHC 242 (31 August 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A3062/2016

Judges

Fisher, K Pillay

Appeal against refusal to set aside confirmation of a domestic violence protection order dismissed for lack of a satisfactory explanation for non-appearance.

• Domestic Violence Act
• Protection Order Confirmation
• Good Cause For Rescission
• Wilful Default
• Domestic-violence-act
• Protection-order

Sedibeng District Municipality v Petlane and Others (J898/14)

Sedibeng District Municipality v Petlane and Others (J898/14) [2015] ZALCJHB 142; (2015) 36 ILJ 2364 (LC) (6 May 2015)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J898/14

Judge

M Mthombeni

The court found that the commissioner exercised her discretion judicially in proceeding with the arbitration hearing in the applicant's absence, as there was no court order staying the proceedings and no reasonable explanation for the applicant's absence. The applicant failed to apply for a postponement and was fully aware of the hearing date. The alleged bias and malice were unfounded and did not constitute a reviewable irregularity. The claim that the award was improperly obtained was rejected, as there was no evidence of fraud or improper conduct by the first respondent. The refusal to res…

Source excerpt

• Arbitration Award Review
• Rescission Of Default Award
• Wilful Default
• Good Cause For Rescission
• Commissioner Discretion
• Unfair Dismissal