South Africa Case Law

SA Taxi Impact Fund (RF) (Pty) Limited v Maluleka; SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Limited v Ndaba; SA Taxi Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Ngqukumba; Potpale Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Ntong (41614/2019; 19411/2019; 19546/2019; 40717/2019)

SA Taxi Impact Fund (RF) (Pty) Limited v Maluleka; SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Limited v Ndaba; SA Taxi Finance Solutions (Pty) Limited v Ngqukumba; Potpale Investments (Proprietary) Limited v Ntong (41614/2019; 19411/2019; 19546/2019; 40717/2019) [2020] ZAGPJHC 219 (11 September 2020)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

41614/2019; 19411/2019; 19546/2019; 40717/2019

Judge

Frank Snyckers

The court held that Rule 31(5)(d) entitles a plaintiff dissatisfied with a registrar's refusal to grant default judgment to seek reconsideration. The registrar's reliance on Blue Chip was misplaced, as that case concerns Magistrates' Court jurisdiction and not the High Court. In High Court proceedings, jurisdiction is established by the locus contractus, and the fact that s129(1) NCA notices were delivered outside the jurisdiction does not deprive the court of jurisdiction. The court found that inconvenience to the defendant is not a valid ground for refusing default judgment where jurisdicti…

Source excerpt

• Default Judgment
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• National Credit Act
• Rule 31 5 D
• Credit Agreements

Haffejee v Bytes Technology Group South Africa and Others (18439/13)

Haffejee v Bytes Technology Group South Africa and Others (18439/13) [2016] ZAWCHC 61 (24 May 2016)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

18439/13

Judge

Sher

The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for his default, having exited the partnership before the debts were incurred and not being personally served with the summons. He set out a bona fide defence with some prospect of success, as he was not party to the agreements giving rise to the debt. The respondent's estoppel argument was not sufficiently established on the papers, as there was no clear evidence that the applicant or his partners represented to the respondent that he remained a partner. Furthermore, the judgment was incorrectly granted again…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Rule 31 5 D
• Estoppel
• Partnership Liability
• Good Cause Requirement

Mavundla v Telkom SA Limited (8230/2013)

Mavundla v Telkom SA Limited (8230/2013) [2015] ZAGPPHC 731 (16 October 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

8230/2013

Judge

H R Fourie

Application to rescind a default judgment dismissed because the applicant gave a poor explanation for delay and no detailed bona fide defence.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Rule 31 5 D
• Good Cause Requirement
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rescission-of-default-judgment
• Rule-31-5-d

Jansen Van Vuuren v Reinecke (703/2012)

Jansen Van Vuuren v Reinecke (703/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 109 (24 July 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

703/2012

Judge

C. H. G. Van Der Merwe

The High Court held that rule 31(5)(d) can be used by a defendant to seek rescission of registrar-granted default judgment, and set the judgment aside.

• Default Judgment
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 31 5 D
• Good Cause Requirement
• Liquidated And Unliquidated Claims
• Default-judgment