South Africa Case Law

Singh v Blue Label Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Another (Leave to Appeal) (D11087/2022)

Singh v Blue Label Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Another (Leave to Appeal) (D11087/2022) [2025] ZAKZDHC 28 (7 May 2025)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D11087/2022

Judge

MBS Masipa

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate reasonable prospects of success on appeal. The distinction between action and application proceedings was correctly drawn, with affidavits serving as sufficient evidence in uncontested section 424 applications. The applicant's reliance on Minnaar was misplaced, as that case involved an unopposed trial, not motion proceedings. No procedural exclusion or irregularity occurred; the applicant's default was voluntary, and no bona fide defence was presented. The requirements of Rule 42(1)(a) and section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act wer…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Section 424 Liability
• Rule 42 1 A
• Procedural Fairness

Road Accident Fund v Mathake (5066/2022)

Road Accident Fund v Mathake (5066/2022) [2025] ZALMPPHC 81 (30 April 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5066/2022

Judge

Mangena

The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission application, holding that the default judgment was not erroneously granted under Rule 42(1)(a).

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42 1 A
• Notice Of Set Down
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Default-judgment

Road Accident Fund v Mbali (11727/2019)

Road Accident Fund v Mbali (11727/2019) [2025] ZAGPPHC 247 (7 March 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11727/2019

Judge

De Beer

The High Court dismissed the Road Accident Fund’s rescission application, finding no admissible evidence of a bona fide defence and no reasonable explanation for delay.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 31 2 B
• Rule 42 1 A
• Bona Fide Defence
• Condonation
• Motion Proceedings

Smith and Another v Sheriff Cape Town North and Others (6810/2021)

Smith and Another v Sheriff Cape Town North and Others (6810/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 309 (29 November 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6810/2021

Judge

K Pillay

The court found that there was non-compliance with Rule 31(4) as no Notice of Set Down was served on the applicants prior to the granting of default judgment. Rule 31(4) is peremptory, and the absence of such notice constitutes a procedural defect unless condonation is sought and granted, which did not occur in this case. The respondents' assertion that condonation was granted was based on hearsay and not supported by admissible evidence. Furthermore, the evidence regarding service of the Notice of Bar was insufficient and largely hearsay, with no confirmatory affidavit from the messenger who…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Service Of Process
• Notice Of Bar
• Rule 31 4 Non Compliance
• Rule 42 1 A
• Condonation Of Irregular Service

Diseko v Anthony Berlowitz Attorneys and Others (1580/2020)

Diseko v Anthony Berlowitz Attorneys and Others (1580/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 2 (10 January 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1580/2020

Judge

Molitsoane

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against the refusal of rescission of two costs orders, finding no prospect of success.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Costs Orders
• Rule 42 1 A
• Leave To Appeal
• Leave-to-appeal
• Rescission-of-judgment

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

Ellis v Eden; Eden v Ellis and Another (10604/2020)

Ellis v Eden; Eden v Ellis and Another (10604/2020) [2022] ZAWCHC 143 (28 July 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10604/2020

Judge

Rogers

The court dismissed leave to appeal against a rescission ruling, holding that delay and lack of frank disclosure remained fatal despite arguments on excipiability and partnership liability.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42 1 A
• Partnership Disputes
• Excipiability
• Delay In Application
• Rescission-of-judgment

Buthelezi Emergency Medical Services (Pty) Limited and Another v Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet Services and Another (78303/19)

Buthelezi Emergency Medical Services (Pty) Limited and Another v Zeda Car Leasing (Pty) Ltd t/a Avis Fleet Services and Another (78303/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 623 (22 October 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

78303/19

Judge

B Ceylon

The High Court granted rescission of a default judgment after finding that a late notice of intention to defend was filed before judgment was granted.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Rule 42 1 A
• Notice Of Intention To Defend
• Costs Order
• Rescission-of-judgment

Magricor (Pty) Ltd v Border Seed Distributors CC; In re: Border Seed Distributors CC v Magricor (Pty) Ltd (1072/2020)

Magricor (Pty) Ltd v Border Seed Distributors CC; In re: Border Seed Distributors CC v Magricor (Pty) Ltd (1072/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 103 (8 September 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1072/2020

Judge

Kroon AJ

The application to stay execution of judgment pending rescission was fatally defective due to Magricor's failure to file a certificate of urgency, absence of a factual basis for urgency in the founding affidavit, and failure to provide a timetable for opposition and answering papers. The court held that the procedural requirements for urgent applications are mandatory and not subject to relaxation merely because the matter is set down on a motion court day. The applicant's conduct amounted to a wholesale disregard for the rules, and the application did not warrant preference over other matter…

Source excerpt

• Urgent Application Requirements
• Stay Of Execution
• Certificate Of Urgency
• Rule 6 12
• Rule 42 1 A

NT Makhubele Enterprises CC and Another v Business Partners Limited and Another (7861/2018)

NT Makhubele Enterprises CC and Another v Business Partners Limited and Another (7861/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 399 (30 September 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

7861/2018

Judge

E Dreyer

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind an earlier order, finding no error under Rule 42(1)(a) and no common-law basis for rescission.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 42 1 A
• Default Judgment
• Postponement Application
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Rule-42-1-a