South Africa Case Law

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)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

046326-2024

Judge

E van der Schyff

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

Koutroulis and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Another (2025-121587)

Koutroulis and Another v ABSA Bank Limited and Another (2025-121587) [2025] ZAGPPHC 765 (31 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2025-121587

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the attachment of Mr. Koutroulis's Nedbank account was incomplete and invalid because notice of attachment was not given to all interested parties as required by Rule 45(8)(c)(i)(a). Rule 45(12) does not dispense with the notice requirement, and the two rules operate in tandem. The Sheriff’s own return confirmed that satisfaction of the writ had not been demanded from the judgment debtor. The court relied on Riordan v First National Bank Limited and others, which held that irregular attachments without proper notice must be set aside. Furthermore, the summons was not effe…

Source excerpt

• Attachment Of Bank Accounts
• Writ Of Execution
• Urgent Interdict
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Service Of Process

Shaya Phansi Projects CC v Montgomery Plant Hire and Construction CC and Another (2849/2021)

Shaya Phansi Projects CC v Montgomery Plant Hire and Construction CC and Another (2849/2021) [2025] ZAMPMHC 36 (25 July 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

2849/2021

Judge

Langa

The court found that the Applicant failed to establish that the default judgment was erroneously sought or granted. Service of the summons was effected at the registered address per the rules, and substantial compliance was achieved. Any confusion or prejudice resulted from the Applicant's own conduct in representing itself as a close corporation and failing to update CIPC records. The Applicant did not follow the correct procedure under Rule 31(5)(d), but this did not bar the application. However, the Applicant failed to set out a bona fide defence or good cause for rescission. The alleged d…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Rule 42
• Rule 31
• Contractual Dispute

L.M obo L[...] and L.M v Road Accident Fund (43630/2019)

L.M obo L[...] and L.M v Road Accident Fund (43630/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 761 (22 July 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43630/2019

Judge

N.N Bam

The High Court dismissed a strike-out application but upheld a Rule 30 challenge, finding a supplementary notice of motion irregular and allowing an affidavit in response to new matter.

• Rule 6 15 Striking Out
• Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings
• Amendment Of Notice Of Motion
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Civil-procedure
• Strike-out-applications

Jomane Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd v Magistrate Van Zyl and Another (067/2024)

Jomane Eiendomme (Pty) Ltd v Magistrate Van Zyl and Another (067/2024) [2025] ZASCA 109 (18 July 2025)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

067/2024

Judges

Mbatha, Matojane, Keightley, Coppin, Phatshoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the magistrate acted within her powers under rule 49(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Rules by ordering the plaintiff to file a declaration following rescission of judgment under section 58(1) of the Magistrates' Courts Act. Section 59 of the Act confirms that, in the absence of summons, the request for judgment is the first document in the action, and the subsequent exchange of pleadings is procedurally sound. The magistrate's order was a practical and fair measure to advance the dispute to trial, consistent with the audi alteram partem principle and the ef…

Source excerpt

• Magistrates Courts Act
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Declaration Directive
• Pleadings
• Ultra Vires
• Reviewability

Mofokeng and Another v South African Municipal Workers Union and Another (C300/2022)

Mofokeng and Another v South African Municipal Workers Union and Another (C300/2022) [2025] ZALCCT 46 (7 July 2025)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C300/2022

Judge

C de Kock

The Labour Court rescinded a default judgment after finding the applicants had not been properly served with the main application and were unaware of it.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Authority To Institute Proceedings
• Audi Alterem Partem
• Fair Labour Practices
• Rescission-of-judgment

Mokokeng v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Limited (2025/010419)

Mokokeng v Mercedes-Benz Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Limited (2025/010419) [2025] ZAGPJHC 650 (29 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/010419

Judge

H Nochumsohn

The High Court dismissed an unopposed rescission application, finding no bona fide defence where the applicant admitted arrears and relied on taxi-industry violence.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rule 31 2 B
• Vehicle Finance
• Rescission-of-judgment

Gamede v Sani Fleet Management (Pty) Ltd (2021/4135)

Gamede v Sani Fleet Management (Pty) Ltd (2021/4135) [2025] ZAGPJHC 240 (27 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/4135

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the default judgment was erroneously sought and granted against the applicant because the deed of suretyship relied upon was invalid and did not comply with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The particulars of claim misstated the position reflected in the deed of suretyship, and no rectification was pleaded or obtained. The registrar granted judgment without a legal foundation, constituting a procedural error under Rule 42(1)(a). The applicant was absent as envisaged by the rule, as there was no evidence he was notified that default judgment was being…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Suretyship
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42
• General Law Amendment Act
• Rectification

Yablonek v Thomson (10968/2021)

Yablonek v Thomson (10968/2021) [2025] ZAWCHC 261 (20 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10968/2021

Judge

Sipunzi

The court found that the applicant was not notified of the trial date and his absence was not intentional or deliberate. The explanation for his default was satisfactory and fell within the scope of Rule 42(1)(a). The delay in bringing the rescission application was explained and not unreasonable, considering the applicant's efforts to secure legal representation and obtain trial documents. The applicant demonstrated prospects of success in his counterclaim, which compensated for the delay. On an objective conspectus of all facts, the requirements for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) were met,…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Wilful Default
• Co Ownership Termination
• Universal Partnership
• Delay In Application

Road Accident Fund v Labuschagne (48804/2017)

Road Accident Fund v Labuschagne (48804/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 639 (17 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48804/2017

Judge

Rust, AJ

The application for rescission by the Road Accident Fund fails because the RAF was given adequate notice of all proceedings, including the amendment of the particulars of claim and the application for default judgment. The RAF elected not to participate and did not object to the amendment, nor did it file any expert notices or oppose the default judgment. The procedure followed was regular and in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court. Rule 42(1)(a) only permits rescission for procedural errors, not for substantive defences or new evidence discovered after judgment. The RAF failed to esta…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42 Uniform Rules
• Good Cause Requirement
• Procedural Irregularity