South Africa Case Law

Mjila and Partners Inc and Another v Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley (1264/23)

Mjila and Partners Inc and Another v Carospan (Pty) Ltd t/a Nashua Kimberley (1264/23) [2025] ZANCHC 71 (8 August 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

1264/23

Judge

Olivier AJ

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a proper and sufficient explanation for their default in filing a plea, both before and after the second notice of bar. The applicants confused the events surrounding the first and second notices of bar and did not clarify the alleged oversight or their belief that they were still engaged in Rule 28 proceedings. The correspondence relied upon did not substantiate their explanation. The applicants did not provide details of their intended defence or annex a draft plea, making it impossible for the court to assess prospects of success. The c…

Source excerpt

• Uplifting Of Bar
• Condonation For Late Plea
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Good Cause Requirement

Road Accident Fund v Labuschagne (48804/2017)

Road Accident Fund v Labuschagne (48804/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 639 (17 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48804/2017

Judge

Rust, AJ

The application for rescission by the Road Accident Fund fails because the RAF was given adequate notice of all proceedings, including the amendment of the particulars of claim and the application for default judgment. The RAF elected not to participate and did not object to the amendment, nor did it file any expert notices or oppose the default judgment. The procedure followed was regular and in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 42(1)(a) only permits rescission for procedural errors, not for substantive defences or new evidence discovered after judgment. The RAF failed to esta…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Good Cause Requirement
• Procedural Irregularity

Hlatshwayo v Minister of Police and Another (1862/2020)

Hlatshwayo v Minister of Police and Another (1862/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 572 (10 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

1862/2020

Judge

K Warren

The applicant failed to provide a detailed and reasonable explanation for the two-year delay in serving the statutory notice. His affidavit lacked specificity regarding the steps taken to pursue his claim and did not demonstrate bona fides. No other party contributed to the delay, and the applicant's conduct indicated a lack of urgency. Furthermore, the applicant did not address the merits of his claim or respond to the respondent's evidence and arguments, undermining his prospects of success. The requirements for condonation under Section 3(4)(b) of the Act were not met, and the application…

Source excerpt

• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Condonation For Late Notice
• Good Cause Requirement
• Unlawful Arrest
• Malicious Prosecution

Briza Publications CC v Brits (14090/2022)

Briza Publications CC v Brits (14090/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 271 (14 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14090/2022

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that Briza Publications CC failed to establish that the costs order was erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a), as the respondent was procedurally entitled to the relief and Briza had proper notice but chose not to oppose or appear. The existence of a potential defence or subsequent evidence does not render the judgment erroneous. On common law grounds, Briza did not provide a satisfactory explanation for its default nor demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The conditional nature of the parties' communications did not amount to a binding settlement or re…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42
• Default Judgment
• Costs Order
• Good Cause Requirement

Lu v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2023-034681)

Lu v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (2023-034681) [2025] ZAGPPHC 181 (26 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-034681

Judge

Mlambo

The court found that the Minister's decision to refuse to uplift the applicant's status as a prohibited person was administrative action reviewable under PAJA. The Minister failed to consider relevant factors, including the applicant's innocence, his long-standing lawful residence, family circumstances, and the risk to his minor child's status. The respondents did not provide sufficient evidence of fraud or conduct a proper investigation. The Minister's reasons merely mirrored those of the Director-General and did not demonstrate meaningful consideration of the applicant's representations. Th…

Source excerpt

• Immigration Act Section 29
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Good Cause Requirement
• Childs Best Interests
• Ministerial Discretion

Sattar and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (144037/2024)

Sattar and Others v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (144037/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 5 (9 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

144037/2024

Judge

Andrews

The court found that the applicants, despite delays and procedural irregularities, have a prima facie right to apply for asylum under the Refugees Act. The principle of non-refoulement, enshrined in both domestic and international law, protects them from deportation until their asylum applications are determined. The Form 23 notices were issued without affording the applicants the required interview to show good cause for their illegal entry or stay, as mandated by section 21(1B) of the Refugees Amendment Act and Regulation 8. The delay in expressing intention to seek asylum does not disquali…

Source excerpt

• Refugees Act
• Non Refoulement
• Urgent Interdict
• Immigration Act
• Right To Freedom And Security
• Good Cause Requirement

Vericred Collections (Pty) Ltd v Moloto and Others (JR892/24)

Vericred Collections (Pty) Ltd v Moloto and Others (JR892/24) [2024] ZALCJHB 497 (12 December 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JR892/24

Judge

Mphahlane

The court found that the commissioner committed a reviewable irregularity by refusing the rescission application solely on the basis of alleged proper notice via SMS, without affording the applicant an opportunity to respond to the SMS evidence or considering the applicant’s bona fide defence. The applicant provided a plausible explanation for non-receipt of notice and demonstrated an intention to participate in the CCMA proceedings. The commissioner failed to weigh all relevant factors, including prospects of success, as required by law. On the merits, the court held that the employee’s cond…

Source excerpt

• Review Of Ccma Award
• Rescission Application
• Jurisdiction Of Ccma
• Constructive Dismissal
• Notice Period
• Good Cause Requirement

Kgalemo Construction CC and Others v Small Enterprise Finance Agency SOC Ltd (54791/2021)

Kgalemo Construction CC and Others v Small Enterprise Finance Agency SOC Ltd (54791/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1179 (19 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

54791/2021

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for their default, as their absence resulted from their legal representatives withdrawing after the postponement application was dismissed. There was no evidence that the withdrawal occurred against the applicants' instructions or without their knowledge. The applicants' conduct amounted to an election not to participate in the proceedings, which does not satisfy the requirements for rescission under the common law or Rule 31(2)(b). The court further held that, in the absence of an adequate explana…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Good Cause Requirement
• Abuse Of Process

P.C v Minister of Safety and Constitutional Development and Another (2013/33619)

P.C v Minister of Safety and Constitutional Development and Another (2013/33619) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1165 (19 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2013/33619

Judge

D Mahon

The High Court dismissed a condonation application for late notice under the Organ of State Act, finding no good cause and prejudice to the respondents.

• Condonation
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Statutory Time Bar
• Good Cause Requirement
• Prejudice To Respondent
• Organ-of-state-act

DF Dynamic Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others v Two Six Nine Sydney Road Share Block (Pty) Ltd (D259/2021)

DF Dynamic Freight (Pty) Ltd and Others v Two Six Nine Sydney Road Share Block (Pty) Ltd (D259/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 95 (17 October 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D259/2021

Judge

Gwagwa AJ

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default judgment, finding no good cause, no credible explanation for default, and no bona fide defence.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Good Cause Requirement
• Wilful Default
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rescission-of-judgment