South Africa Case Law

Nedbank Limited v Altivex 15 (Pty) Ltd and Others (042994/2023)

Nedbank Limited v Altivex 15 (Pty) Ltd and Others (042994/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 597 (18 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

042994/2023

Judge

K Strydom

The court found that the affidavit supporting summary judgment was non-compliant due to remote commissioning, and no explanation for such non-compliance was provided. Without a factual basis for exercising discretion, the court could not condone the non-compliance. The failure of the commissioner to state his designation was condoned as a bona fide oversight with explanation. The respondents' defence of iustus error was rejected as they failed to establish misrepresentation or a sustainable defence in law. Regarding Rule 46A, the respondents provided sufficient information to engage the court…

Source excerpt

• Remote Commissioning Of Affidavits
• Summary Judgment
• Suretyship
• Rule 46a Execution
• Justices Of The Peace Act
• Iustus Error

Africa's Best Foods (Pty) Ltd v Ed Foods S.R.L (2022/1245)

Africa's Best Foods (Pty) Ltd v Ed Foods S.R.L (2022/1245) [2022] ZAGPJHC 1048 (28 December 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/1245

Judge

RJ Moultrie

The High Court held that a commissioner’s affidavit filed in reply was not irregular, and that foreign affidavits not authenticated under Rule 63 were not automatically struck out.

• Authentication Of Documents
• Commissioning Of Affidavits
• Rule 63 Uniform Rules
• Justices Of The Peace Act
• Virtual Commissioning
• Rule-63