Pridin Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Boutique Leasing Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (046326-2024)
Pridin Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another v Boutique Leasing Company (Pty) Ltd and Another (046326-2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 779 (1 August 2025)
The court found that the applicants failed to establish extreme urgency justifying the departure from the timelines prescribed by Rule 6(5)(b). The applicants were aware of the default judgment and attachment of property by 24 June 2025 but delayed in launching urgent proceedings. The court was not satisfied that the applicants made out a case for urgency or condonation. Furthermore, the applicants did not demonstrate a bona fide defence or provide sufficient evidence to challenge the claim amount. The application for a stay of execution and interdict was therefore struck from the roll for la…
Source excerpt
- Stay Of Execution
- Default Judgment
- Service Of Process
- Rescission Of Judgment
- Urgency
- Master Agreement