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

Gamede v Sani Fleet Management (Pty) Ltd (2021/4135)

Gamede v Sani Fleet Management (Pty) Ltd (2021/4135) [2025] ZAGPJHC 240 (27 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/4135

Judge

E F Dippenaar

The court found that the default judgment was erroneously sought and granted against the applicant because the deed of suretyship relied upon was invalid and did not comply with section 6 of the General Law Amendment Act 50 of 1956. The particulars of claim misstated the position reflected in the deed of suretyship, and no rectification was pleaded or obtained. The registrar granted judgment without a legal foundation, constituting a procedural error under Rule 42(1)(a). The applicant was absent as envisaged by the rule, as there was no evidence he was notified that default judgment was being…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Suretyship
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42
• General Law Amendment Act
• Rectification

Musekwa v SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd (2018/27931)

Musekwa v SA Taxi Development Finance (Pty) Ltd (2018/27931) [2025] ZAGPJHC 593 (6 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/27931

Judge

A J D'Oliveira

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind default judgment under Rule 42(1)(a), finding the delay unreasonable and no material error in granting judgment.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42
• Default Judgment
• Reasonable Time Requirement
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Default-judgment

Road Accident Fund v Longmans (66649/16)

Road Accident Fund v Longmans (66649/16) [2025] ZAGPPHC 591 (2 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

66649/16

Judge

GC Wright

The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission bid under Rule 42(1)(a), holding the Fund sought to reargue the merits rather than show procedural error.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42
• Condonation
• Costs Order
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Rule-42

Reddy v Growthpoint Properties Limited (2018/45020)

Reddy v Growthpoint Properties Limited (2018/45020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 408 (27 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/45020

Judge

PJ Du Plessis

The court found that the first order compelling discovery and striking out the applicant's defence was erroneously granted. The respondent's application was premature, as discovery notices were served before the close of pleadings, and the applicant was not properly notified of the relief sought. The order did not comply with Rule 35(7) or the applicable practice directives, as it implemented a one-step strike-out process without allowing the applicant an opportunity to explain or seek condonation. The judge was not made aware of crucial facts, including the prematurity of the discovery notic…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Discovery Procedure
• Practice Directives
• Rule 42
• Rule 35

Briza Publications CC v Brits (14090/2022)

Briza Publications CC v Brits (14090/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 271 (14 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

14090/2022

Judge

Neukircher

The court found that Briza Publications CC failed to establish that the costs order was erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a), as the respondent was procedurally entitled to the relief and Briza had proper notice but chose not to oppose or appear. The existence of a potential defence or subsequent evidence does not render the judgment erroneous. On common law grounds, Briza did not provide a satisfactory explanation for its default nor demonstrate a bona fide defence with prospects of success. The conditional nature of the parties' communications did not amount to a binding settlement or re…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42
• Default Judgment
• Costs Order
• Good Cause Requirement

Road Accident Fund v Nibe (76672/2017)

Road Accident Fund v Nibe (76672/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 24 (16 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

76672/2017

Judge

T E Joyini

The court found that the applicant was deprived of an opportunity to contest the amendment to the particulars of claim, which increased the amount claimed for loss of earnings substantially. The respondent failed to comply with Rule 28(2) by not giving notice of the amendment, resulting in a procedural irregularity. The applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for its default, citing the expiration of its panel attorneys' contracts and subsequent lack of representation. The applicant also demonstrated a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as the amendment re-opened…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Rule 28 Amendment Of Pleadings
• Procedural Fairness
• Undue Delay
• Rule 42
• Litis Contestatio

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

Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (21/19942)

Liberty Holdings v Maloka and Another (21/19942) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1229 (17 November 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

21/19942

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The High Court varied its order under Rule 42(1)(b), correcting an omission so the main application was dismissed, and declared the respondent a vexatious litigant.

• Variation Of Order
• Vexatious Litigation
• Rule 42
• Costs Award
• Rule-42
• Variation-of-order

Mofokeng and Another v Taxing Master of the Free State High Court and Others (4685/2023)

Mofokeng and Another v Taxing Master of the Free State High Court and Others (4685/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 350 (5 November 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4685/2023

Judge

Loubser

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a Taxing Master’s allocatur, finding the late notice of opposition unexplained in part and Rule 42 inapplicable.

• Taxation Of Costs
• Rescission Of Allocatur
• Late Filing Of Opposition
• Rule 42
• Rule 48
• Taxation-of-costs