South Africa Case Law

Nedbank Limited v Mashaba (2023/0345755; 2023/047197; 2023/047199; 2023/048901; 2023/053583; 2023/059144)

Nedbank Limited v Mashaba (2023/0345755; 2023/047197; 2023/047199; 2023/048901; 2023/053583; 2023/059144) [2024] ZAGPJHC 33; 2024 (3) SA 155 (GJ) (12 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/0345755; 2023/047197; 2023/047199; 2023/048901; 2023/053583; 2023/059144

Judge

B M Gilbert

There is no binding precedent in the Gauteng Division on whether the registrar may grant default judgment in NCA matters under Rule 31(5), as decisions of single judges conflict and the full court decision in Mollentze, while highly persuasive, is not binding. The minority judgments of Jafta J in Nkata and University of Stellenbosch are not part of the majority and thus not binding. The oversight required by section 130 of the NCA is administrative and can be fulfilled by the registrar using the powers conferred by Rule 31(5)(b). The registrar is competent to grant default judgments in NCA ma…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• National Credit Act
• Registrar Powers
• Rule 31 5
• Judicial Oversight

Hossein N.O and Others v Adinolfi and Others (A390/2019)

Hossein N.O and Others v Adinolfi and Others (A390/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 857 (8 November 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A390/2019

Judges

M M Lingenfelder, Mbongwe, Tlhapi

The court found that the first respondent failed to comply with the peremptory procedural requirement of Rule 31(5)(a) by not giving the appellants at least five days' notice of the intention to apply for default judgment. This omission rendered the default judgment erroneously sought and granted in the absence of the appellants. Under Rule 42(1)(a), the appellants were entitled to rescission of the judgment without the need to show good cause. The court rejected the respondent's argument that the appellants abused the process, noting that procedural compliance is paramount and the respondent…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Rule 31 5
• Rule 42 1 A
• Notice Of Bar
• Alienation Of Land Act

Malefane v Nedbank (2019/41530)

Malefane v Nedbank (2019/41530) [2022] ZAGPJHC 196 (25 March 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/41530

Judge

Flatela Luleka

The High Court granted leave to appeal after finding prospects of success on whether a registrar could properly grant default judgment after an earlier referral to open court.

• Default Judgment
• Registrar Powers
• Leave To Appeal
• Superior Courts Act
• Rule 31 5
• Access To Court

Du Plessis v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (62570/2015)

Du Plessis v Firstrand Bank Limited t/a Wesbank (62570/2015) [2018] ZAGPPHC 286 (2 May 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

62570/2015

Judge

Tlhapi

The court held that the Registrar's authority to grant default judgment under Rule 31(5) and section 23 of the Superior Courts Act remains valid and has not been repealed. The applicant failed to dispute the respondent's compliance with section 129 notification requirements and abandoned her initial grounds for rescission. Reliance on minority judgments in Nkata and University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic was misplaced, as there was no consensus that all default judgments under the NCA must be granted by the court. The Registrar's function is administrative, and the applicant did not demo…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• National Credit Act
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Judicial Oversight
• Rule 31 5
• Section 129 Notice

Firstrand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v Stand 949 Cottage Lane Sundowner (Pty) Ltd and Another (2014/10545)

Firstrand Bank Limited t/a First National Bank v Stand 949 Cottage Lane Sundowner (Pty) Ltd and Another (2014/10545) [2014] ZAGPJHC 117 (4 June 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2014/10545

Judge

C G Lamont

The court held that default judgment for the money claim could be referred to the registrar, while any request to declare residential property executable had to go to court.

• Default Judgment
• Mortgage Bond
• Special Executability
• Rule 31 5
• Suretyship
• Default-judgment

FirstRand Bank Ltd v Woods and Others, Nedbank Ltd v Boyce and Another (1837/07, 2327/11)

FirstRand Bank Ltd v Woods and Others, Nedbank Ltd v Boyce and Another (1837/07, 2327/11) [2011] ZAECPEHC 22; 2011 (5) SA 536 (ECP) (31 May 2011)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

1837/07, 2327/11

Judge

N Dambuza

The court held that the procedure adopted by the plaintiff to seek confirmation of the registrar's order was not supported by Rule 31(5)(d), as the plaintiff was not a 'dissatisfied party' and had long been aware of the order without seeking reconsideration. The court found no basis in law for confirming its own judgments to 'fireproof' them against future rescission applications. The inherent jurisdiction of the court does not extend to granting orders that would prevent judgment debtors from seeking rescission of default judgments. The court further noted that the constitutional concerns ra…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Execution Against Immovable Property
• Rule 31 5
• Rule 46
• Primary Residence Protection
• Inherent Jurisdiction