South Africa Case Law

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

Ditsele and Another v ABSA Bank Limited (25789/2020)

Ditsele and Another v ABSA Bank Limited (25789/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1177 (22 November 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

25789/2020

Judge

SA Thobane

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a prior order on sale-in-execution reserve price, finding no basis under Rule 42 or Rule 31.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Sale In Execution
• Reserve Price
• Rule 42
• Rule 31

Mahlangu and Others v Tshikululu Social Investment NPC (2018/19141)

Mahlangu and Others v Tshikululu Social Investment NPC (2018/19141) [2024] ZAGPJHC 963 (25 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/19141

Judge

N van der Walt

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default judgment, finding no bona fide defence and no basis for Rule 42 relief.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Rule 31
• Rule 42
• Bona Fide Defence
• Breach Of Contract

Road Accident Fund v Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd Sunshine Hospital (32323/2020)

Road Accident Fund v Newnet Properties (Pty) Ltd Sunshine Hospital (32323/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 656 (2 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

32323/2020

Judge

Collis

The High Court dismissed a rescission application, finding no reasonable explanation for default, no valid Rule 42 error, and conduct amounting to peremption.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Wilful Default
• Peremption
• Unliquidated Damages
• Rule 31
• Rule 42

Moemedi Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and All Occupiers of ERF 21 Bloemdal Small Holdings, District Bloemfontein, Free State Province, Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Hartzenberg N.O and Another (4374/2023)

Moemedi Enterprises (Pty) Ltd and All Occupiers of ERF 21 Bloemdal Small Holdings, District Bloemfontein, Free State Province, Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Hartzenberg N.O and Another (4374/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 178 (31 May 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4374/2023

Judge

Majosi O.R

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default eviction order, finding no proper explanation for default, no locus standi, and no bona fide defence.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Eviction Order
• Locus Standi
• Liquidation
• Rule 31
• Rule 42

Malefane v Nedbank Limited (A5040/2022)

Malefane v Nedbank Limited (A5040/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 74 (30 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

A5040/2022

Judges

R Strydom, S Yacoob, A Maier-Frawley

Full Court appeal dismissed after finding no basis to rescind default judgment, and holding the Registrar could grant the second default judgment application.

• Default Judgment
• Rescission Of Judgment
• National Credit Act
• Service Of Process
• Rule 31
• Bona Fide Defence

TBS Management Consultant and Projects CC and Another v Spar Group Ltd (2019/9612)

TBS Management Consultant and Projects CC and Another v Spar Group Ltd (2019/9612) [2023] ZAGPJHC 841 (27 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/9612

Judge

Moorcroft

Rescission of a default judgment was dismissed because the applicants knew of the proceedings, gave no reasonable explanation for default, and showed no bona fide defence.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Suretyship
• Good Cause
• Rule 42
• Rule 31

Madzibadela and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (1878/2022; 1879/2022)

Madzibadela and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (1878/2022; 1879/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 245 (19 June 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1878/2022; 1879/2022

Judge

P. J. Loubser

The court found that the applicants were procedurally barred from filing their pleas after the notice of bar had expired, and thus their pleas had no effect on the granting of the default judgments. The respondent complied with Rule 31(5)(a) by giving proper notice of intention to apply for default judgment, which was received by the applicants’ attorneys. The applicants’ argument that they should have been notified of the specific date for the application was rejected, as the rules do not require such notice beyond the intention. The Rezaei case was distinguished, as the procedural defect pr…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 31
• Rule 42
• Notice Of Bar
• Suretyship

Auditor-General of South Africa v Accounting Officer of Gateway Airports Authority (Ltd) and Another (124/2022)

Auditor-General of South Africa v Accounting Officer of Gateway Airports Authority (Ltd) and Another (124/2022) [2022] ZALMPPHC 27 (26 May 2022)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

124/2022

Judge

GC Muller

The court held that the plaintiff's claim for audit fees is a debt or liquidated demand because the amount is determined in accordance with section 23(1) of the Public Audit Act, after consultation with the oversight mechanism and National Treasury, and is ascertainable by mere calculation. The claim is not based on an implied term or quantum meruit requiring the court to determine reasonableness. Therefore, the application for default judgment should have been referred to the Registrar in terms of Rule 31(5)(a), as the claim meets the requirements for a debt or liquidated demand.

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Liquidated Demand
• Audit Fees
• Public Audit Act
• Rule 31
• Quantum Meruit

Biyana v Nedbank Limited (46214/2018)

Biyana v Nedbank Limited (46214/2018) [2021] ZAGPPHC 628 (20 September 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

46214/2018

Judge

Tlhapi VV

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind summary judgment, holding that the defendant’s filing of opposing papers meant rescission was not the proper remedy.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Summary Judgment
• Rule 42
• Rule 31
• Section 129 National Credit Act
• Rescission-of-judgment