South Africa Case Law

Briedenhann v Nordien N.O (Appeal) (2115/2021)

Briedenhann v Nordien N.O (Appeal) (2115/2021) [2025] ZANCHC 52 (6 June 2025)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

2115/2021

Judges

Nxumalo, Stanton, Olivier

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo applied too strict a test in assessing whether the appellant had shown good cause for rescission. The court a quo improperly weighed the merits and made credibility findings at the rescission stage, rather than determining whether the appellant's defence, if established at trial, would entitle him to relief. The appellant's partial payment defence, supported by documentary evidence of livestock delivery, was sufficient to constitute a bona fide defence. The correct test, as set out in Grant v Plumbers, requires only that the defendant set out averm…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rule 31 Application
• Partial Payment
• Costs Award

ABSA Bank Ltd v Arbee (3117/2011)

ABSA Bank Ltd v Arbee (3117/2011) [2013] ZAKZDHC 8 (15 March 2013)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

3117/2011

Judge

Ndlovu

The court granted judgment under Rule 31(1)(c) after rejecting the defendant’s claim that he signed the consent to judgment under duress.

• Consent To Judgment
• Duress
• Suretyship
• Mortgage Bond
• Rule 31 Application
• Consent-to-judgment

Nedbank Ltd v Fuls and Another (3804/2012)

Nedbank Ltd v Fuls and Another (3804/2012) [2012] ZAWCHC 196 (12 November 2012)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3804/2012

Judge

Mansingh

The applicant established a liquidated claim against the first respondent by virtue of a judgment for R3,708,829.49, which remains unsatisfied. The respondent defaulted on the indulgence agreement and admitted to arrears. The court found that the applicant's locus standi was not negated by payments from co-sureties, nor by the nature of the judgment, as the settlement agreement preserved the original cause of action. The respondent failed to provide full disclosure of his financial position and assets, and the court determined that there was a reasonable prospect that sequestration would bene…

Source excerpt

• Provisional Sequestration
• Liquidated Claim
• Suretyship Liability
• Advantage To Creditors
• Court Discretion
• Rule 31 Application

Vilvanathan and Another v Louw NO (1254/2003)

Vilvanathan and Another v Louw NO (1254/2003) [2010] ZAWCHC 49; 2010 (5) SA 17 (WCC) ; [2011] 2 All SA 331 (WCC) (19 March 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1254/2003

Judges

Thring, Moosa, Baartman

The court held that neither the satisfaction of the judgment debt nor the judgment creditor's consent to rescission constitutes 'good cause' or 'sufficient cause' for rescission of a final judgment under Rule 31(2)(b) or at common law. The applicants failed to provide any reasonable explanation for their default or to advance a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The principles laid down by the Appellate Division and Supreme Court of Appeal require both elements to be present for rescission, and these requirements are binding on the court. The court further noted that the public inte…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Good Cause Requirement
• Bona Fide Defence
• Rule 31 Application