Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Road Accident Fund v Mathake (5066/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 81 (30 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission application, holding that the default judgment was not erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a).
Motsepe v Hlatshwayo and Others (2024/007943) [2025] ZAGPJHC 171 (12 February 2025)
The High Court removed an application from the roll because the applicant failed to prove proper service of the notice of set down on all interested respondents.
Chikane and Another v Redefine Retail (Pty) Limited (12437/2019) [2024] ZAGPJHC 431 (2 May 2024)
The court found that the applicants were not absent in the sense required by rule 42(1)(a), as they had notice of the application and elected not to attend or oppose. The alleged errors raised by the applicants, including the absence of a damages affidavit and founding affidavit, were not substantiated and did not constitute errors cognisable under rule 42(1)(a). The applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their default or demonstrate a bona fide defence to the dismissal application. The court exercised its discretion against rescission under both rule 42(1)(a) and common la…
Source excerpt
King Sabata Dalindyebo Local Municipality v Zwelitsha (CA78/2022) [2023] ZAECMHC 29 (13 June 2023)
The court held that the omission of a stated day in the notice of motion for default judgment constituted a material procedural irregularity under Uniform Rule 6(5)(b)(iii) and Eastern Cape Rule 23(m). This omission violated the Municipality's fair trial rights and the audi alteram partem principle, as it deprived the Municipality of notice of when the application would be heard, thereby denying it a true opportunity to be heard. The court further found that municipalities are organs of state entitled to the protections of Rule 23(m), which requires service of the notice of set down on the mu…
Source excerpt
Ford Motor Company and Manufacturing of South Africa v Thobakgale and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 453; 14855/2021 (13 June 2023)
The High Court rescinded default judgment after finding irregular service on a company and no proper notice of set down for the default application.
Bhembe and Another v Industrial Development Incorporation Of South Africa (17815/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 223 (22 February 2023)
The High Court rescinded a default judgment after finding the respondent failed to serve a notice of set down more than six months after summons.
BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mpane (91617/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 743 (11 October 2022)
The court postponed a summary judgment application after finding the parties were prejudiced by incorrect notice and procedural irregularities.
First Rand Bank Limited v Madigage and Another (23569/2017) [2021] ZAGPJHC 872 (28 April 2021)
High Court postponed a bank’s opposed motion after finding the respondents’ attorneys failed to notify the second respondent of withdrawal and the hearing.
Road Agency Limpopo v Tshepanga Engineers (Pty) Ltd (981/2016) [2020] ZAGPPHC 787 (24 December 2020)
The High Court rescinded a default order dismissing a rescission application, holding the matter was improperly set down and the applicant was not in wilful default.
Pitt obo Pitt v Road Accident Fund (850/2016, ECD 2150/2016) [2019] ZAECELLC 5 (5 March 2019)
The court held the matter was not properly set down for trial because no Rule 29(2)(b) notice of set down was served, so no costs order was made.
Explore more
