South Africa Case Law

M.J.L v L.O.L (22341/19 ; A288/2023)

M.J.L v L.O.L (22341/19 ; A288/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 331 (27 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

22341/19 ; A288/2023

Judge

Kooverjie

The court found that the defendant, Mrs L.O.L, satisfied the requirements for a partial forfeiture order under Section 9(1) of the Divorce Act. The evidence established that the plaintiff, Mr L.J.L, would be unduly benefited if the forfeiture order was not granted, as he failed to contribute to the acquisition and maintenance of the immovable property and did not use his pension benefit for the joint estate. The court distinguished the facts from Phokobye, noting that the forfeiture claim was properly ventilated in the divorce proceedings following partial rescission of the proprietary order.…

Source excerpt

• Divorce Act Section 9
• Forfeiture Of Benefits
• Partial Rescission
• Division Of Joint Estate
• Pension Interest
• Costs Award

N.M v T.M (Born S) (Leave to Appeal) (10393/2017)

N.M v T.M (Born S) (Leave to Appeal) (10393/2017) [2021] ZAGPPHC 408 (17 May 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

10393/2017

Judge

Conradie

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against refusal of partial rescission of a divorce-related settlement agreement and default order.

• Divorce Settlement Agreement
• Partial Rescission
• Maintenance Of Children
• Default Judgment
• Notice Of Intention To Defend
• Partial-rescission

Limbada and Another v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd v Limbada and Others (50016/2012)

Limbada and Another v Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd and Others; In re: Aurora Empowerment Systems (Pty) Ltd v Limbada and Others (50016/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 652 (8 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

50016/2012

Judge

E Bertelsmann

The court found that the applicants were represented at the hearing and that the judgment was not granted in their absence, thus Rule 31(2)(b) and Rule 42(1)(a) do not apply. The applicants failed to show good cause for rescission of the entire judgment, as their explanation for default was insufficient and they admitted receiving the payments. However, the court accepted that the applicants had repaid R1 million each, which was not disclosed in the liquidators' affidavits and was undisputed. Accordingly, the court exercised its discretion to grant partial rescission of the judgment to the ex…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Insolvency Act Section 26
• Undue Preference
• Collusive Dealing
• Common Law Fraud
• Partial Rescission

Conekt Business Group (Pty) Ltd v Navigator Computer Consultants CC; InRe: Navigator Computer Consultants CC v Conekt Business Group (Pty) Ltd (2010/02957)

Conekt Business Group (Pty) Ltd v Navigator Computer Consultants CC; InRe: Navigator Computer Consultants CC v Conekt Business Group (Pty) Ltd (2010/02957) [2014] ZAGPJHC 269; 2015 (4) SA 103 (GJ) (27 June 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2010/02957

Judge

Fisher

High Court granted partial rescission of a default judgment, finding no wilful default and triable defences on contract and prescription.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Prescription Act
• Contractual Dispute
• Rule 31 2 B
• Partial Rescission
• Rescission-of-default-judgment