South Africa Case Law

Somasiphula General Trading CC and Another v Van's Afslaers Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Others (88160/2018)

Somasiphula General Trading CC and Another v Van's Afslaers Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Others (88160/2018) [2022] ZAGPPHC 345 (16 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

88160/2018

Judge

AC Basson

The court found that the applicants failed to provide a reasonable explanation for their default, as Mr. Mahlangu, a member of the applicant, had knowledge of the proceedings and failed to act. Service was properly effected at the registered address and chosen domicilium citandi et executandi, with personal service on a family member. The lack of authority defence was rejected, as Mr. Mahlangu acted as the face of the applicant and was clothed with ostensible authority. The suretyship defence was dismissed based on established case law that a member of a close corporation is a co-manager and…

Source excerpt

• Recission Of Default Judgment
• Close Corporation Authority
• Service Of Process
• Suretyship In Close Corporations

Sijeku v Motor Finance Corporation A Division of Nedbank Limited (1227/2012)

Sijeku v Motor Finance Corporation A Division of Nedbank Limited (1227/2012) [2015] ZAECMHC 74 (15 October 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1227/2012

Judge

RWN Brooks

Application to rescind a default judgment dismissed after the court found no adequate explanation for delay and no sufficiently pleaded bona fide defence.

• Recission Of Default Judgment
• Condonation
• Bona Fide Defence
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Costs Award
• Rescission-of-default-judgment

Mafuna v Lungwengwe and Another (1265/12)

Mafuna v Lungwengwe and Another (1265/12) [2015] ZAECMHC 69 (18 September 2015)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

1265/12

Judge

Brooks

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for his default, as the evidence regarding service was inconclusive and there was no indication of wilfulness or gross negligence. The applicant's involvement in settlement negotiations did not negate his right to be properly notified of the proceedings. The court accepted that the applicant was bona fide in seeking to challenge the respondent's claim to the position of Inkosana, and that he had a bona fide defence based on his identification and appointment by the Amajola Royal Family. The interests of justice required that…

Source excerpt

• Recission Of Default Judgment
• Rule 31 Uniform Rules
• Bona Fide Defence
• Service Of Process