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
Makole Resources (Pty) Ltd v Wessels (26690/2016) [2022] ZAGPPHC 630 (18 August 2022)
The High Court rescinded a default judgment after finding no wilful default and accepting that the applicant showed a bona fide defence to a veld fire damages claim.
Matji v Van Straten NO and Others (28118/12) [2022] ZAGPJHC 362 (27 May 2022)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a final sequestration order, finding no sufficient cause, no reasonable explanation for delay, and no bona fide defence.
Nel v Grofin Africa Fund (SA) (Pty) Ltd (89327/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 621 (21 October 2019)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application, finding no adequate explanation for default and no bona fide defence with prospects of success.
Naidoo and Another v Consolidated Steel Industries (Pty) Ltd, in re: Consolidated Steel Industries (Pty) Ltd v Naidoo and Another (50682/13) [2017] ZAGPPHC 806 (23 November 2017)
The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default judgment, finding the applicants gave no adequate explanation for delay and no detailed bona fide defence.
South African Commercial Catering and Allied Workers Union v Kramer Weihmann & Joubert (3818/2011) [2012] ZAFSHC 39 (15 March 2012)
The Free State High Court rescinded a summary judgment after finding sufficient cause: the applicant’s default was due to attorneys’ neglect and the fee claim was disputed.
Far Eastern Garments Manufacturers (Pty) Ltd v South African Revenue Services (8056/06) [2009] ZAKZPHC 64 (26 November 2009)
The High Court dismissed a rescission application by a taxpayer, finding no reasonable explanation for a long delay and no bona fide defence.
Van Den Berg v Senwes Beperk (5711/07) [2008] ZAFSHC 12 (28 February 2008)
The court found that the applicant provided a reasonable and acceptable explanation for her default, given her advanced age, lack of resources, and reliance on her son and attorneys. The evidence showed she was not aware of the trial date or the withdrawal of her attorneys, and her explanation was corroborated by her son's affidavit. The respondent's argument that she should have known was not supported by the facts. The court accepted the applicant's assertion that she only learned of the judgment in November 2007 and acted promptly thereafter. On the merits, the applicant presented a bona f…
Source excerpt
Coleby v Van Wyk (1375/2006) [2006] ZAFSHC 160 (26 October 2006)
Application to rescind a default judgment failed because the applicant showed neither a bona fide defence nor a reasonable explanation for delay.
Explore more
