Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Minister of Police v Hadebe (1905/2022) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 84 (12 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed the Minister of Police’s late condonation and rescission application, finding the delay unexplained, the bar unresolved, and the alleged defence unsubstantiated.
Hamze Trading (Pty) Ltd v Alf's Tippers CC (20955/2022) [2024] ZAGPJHC 451; [2024] 3 All SA 248 (GJ) (6 May 2024)
The court found that service of the summons and notice of set-down by affixing to the post box at the applicant's registered office did not constitute effective service under rule 4(1)(a)(v), as the rule requires affixing to the main door and the method used was not compliant. The applicant failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its default and did not set out a bona fide defence with sufficient factual detail or prospects of success. The applicant's affidavits contained demonstrable factual errors and vague assertions, undermining its credibility and bona fides. The court exercised i…
Source excerpt
Nale Trading CC and Another v Freyssinet Posten (Pty) Ltd In re: Freyssinet Posten (Pty) Ltd v Nale Trading (Pty) Ltd and Another (26992/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 445 (22 September 2021)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application, finding the applicants were in wilful default and had not shown a bona fide defence.
Global Aviation Investments Pty Limited and Others v Ingosstrakh (32049/2015) [2018] ZAGPJHC 477 (31 July 2018)
The High Court refused default judgment in an aircraft insurance dispute, finding genuine factual disputes and a bona fide defence meant the matter should go to trial.
Cathoros Commodities (Pty) Ltd v Anglo Operations (Pty) Ltd; In re: Anglo Operations (Pty) Ltd v Cathoros Commodities (Pty) Ltd (54095/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1106 (24 November 2016)
The High Court rescinded a registrar-granted default judgment, finding defective notice under Rule 31(5)(a) and an improper costs order, and held the application was timely under Rule 42.
Mafuna v Lungwengwe and Another (1265/12) [2015] ZAECMHC 69 (18 September 2015)
The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable explanation for his default, as the evidence regarding service was inconclusive and there was no indication of wilfulness or gross negligence. The applicant's involvement in settlement negotiations did not negate his right to be properly notified of the proceedings. The court accepted that the applicant was bona fide in seeking to challenge the respondent's claim to the position of Inkosana, and that he had a bona fide defence based on his identification and appointment by the Amajola Royal Family. The interests of justice required that…
Source excerpt
Thaw Trading v Central Lake Trading 214 (Pty) Ltd (1422/2012) [2013] ZANWHC 37 (14 March 2013)
The High Court granted default judgment for a liquidated construction debt, holding that an oral agreement did not make the claim illiquid.
Tower Construction CC v van der Walt and Another (27659/2010) [2012] ZAWCHC 197 (20 November 2012)
The court found that the applicants' delay in filing their plea and failure to attend to the Rule 31(5)(a) application was not due to wilful default or gross negligence, but rather to a mistaken assumption and attorney's absence. The applicants demonstrated a firm intention to defend the matter and took steps to do so. The founding affidavit incorporated the defence set out in the opposing affidavit to the summary judgment application and the plea and counterclaim, which included allegations of defective workmanship, non-compliance with the building agreement, and the applicability of an arbi…
Source excerpt
James Gilbert SA (Pty) Ltd v Rugby World Distributors CC (56699/2008) [2010] ZAGPPHC 92 (24 August 2010)
The court held that the respondent's point in limine regarding the authority of the deponent was not sustainable, as such a challenge must be made in terms of Rule 7(1) of the Uniform Rules, and no such challenge was made. However, the application for rescission was filed one day late, outside the 20-day period prescribed by Rule 31(2)(b), and no explanation or condonation was sought for this delay. The absence of an explanation for the late filing, combined with the fact that service of summons was properly effected at the registered address and the lack of credible evidence that the summons…
Source excerpt
Colavita v Samstock Portfolio Property (Pty) Limited (CA 301/2001) [2002] ZANWHC 2 (24 January 2002)
The court found that the first return of service was defective and did not comply with the requirements of the Uniform Rules of Court. The second return was ambiguous and not properly filed, and there was no satisfactory evidence that the applicant had knowledge of the action. The Registrar granted default judgment in the absence of the applicant, who was clearly affected thereby. The court held that this constituted an error within the meaning of Rule 42(1)(a), and rescission was justified without the need to show good cause. The application was brought within a reasonable time, and the reli…
Source excerpt
Explore more
