Van Heerden v Bronkhorst (846/19) [2020] ZASCA 147 (13 November 2020)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
846/19
Judges
Saldulker, Molemela, Eksteen
The majority held that the notice of motion, although a hybrid between forms 2 and 2(a), provided unequivocal notice of the hearing date and afforded all procedural rights. Service of the notice of hearing was effected via the electronic address provided by the appellant's attorneys, in accordance with the rules. The failure to receive the notice was due to internal affairs within the appellant's attorneys' office and did not constitute a procedural error or mistake in the proceedings. The appellant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for her default and did not establish a bona fide d…
McNeil and Another v Aspeling and Others (A85/18) [2018] ZAWCHC 185 (28 June 2018)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
A85/18
Judges
D M Davis, R C A Henney
The court found that the notice of motion in the eviction application was irregular and ambiguous, failing to comply with Rule 55(1)(f) of the Magistrates' Court Rules and section 4 of PIE. The notice did not properly inform the appellants of the time for opposition or the hearing date, and the grounds for eviction were not adequately set out. The procedure adopted deprived the appellants of a fair opportunity to present their case, and the default judgment was granted prematurely and contrary to the rules. Additionally, the appellants raised a bona fide defence regarding both procedural comp…