South Africa Case Law

Mafuyeka and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa (3835/18)

Mafuyeka and Another v Standard Bank of South Africa (3835/18) [2025] ZAMPMHC 35 (17 July 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

3835/18

Judge

Leso

The applicants failed to identify the specific rule under which their rescission application was brought, but the pleadings and submissions were consistent with Rule 31(2)(b). The explanation for default was unsupported by documentary or confirmatory evidence and was found to lack credibility. The applicants were personally served and chose not to participate, amounting to wilful default. No bona fide defence was established, as the alleged payment arrangement was unsubstantiated and the applicants acknowledged their indebtedness. The requirements for rescission under Rule 31(2)(b) were not m…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Mortgage Bond Enforcement
• Wilful Default

Gobey and Another v Nedbank Limited (40203/2021)

Gobey and Another v Nedbank Limited (40203/2021) [2023] ZAGPPHC 719 (21 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

40203/2021

Judge

H G A Snyman

The High Court refused rescission of a default judgment against sureties, but reduced the debt to reflect payments made and granted condonation.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Suretyship Liability
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Variation Of Judgment
• Condonation Application
• Rescission-of-default-judgment

Madzibadela v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (1878/2022;1879/2022)

Madzibadela v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Another (1878/2022;1879/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 52 (22 February 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1878/2022;1879/2022

Judge

P. J. Loubser

The High Court dismissed two rescission applications against default judgments, finding no good cause under Rule 31(2)(b) and no basis for Rule 42 relief.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• National Credit Act
• Suretyship
• Settlement Agreement

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Van Zyl N.O and Others (3275/2016)

Mangaung Metropolitan Municipality v Van Zyl N.O and Others (3275/2016) [2021] ZAFSHC 314 (9 December 2021)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3275/2016

Judge

Daniso

The court found that section 359 of the Companies Act did not apply to the municipality's rescission application, as the municipality was not a creditor and was not seeking an order against the company in liquidation. However, the municipality failed to provide a reasonable explanation for its default in its founding affidavit, and its attempt to do so in reply was impermissible. The explanation offered was inadequate and implausible. Furthermore, the municipality did not establish a bona fide defence with prospects of success, as its contentions regarding the payment certificates were contra…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Wilful Default
• Bona Fide Defence
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31

Moneymorathoe v Body Corporate of Pontrailto (52676/2015)

Moneymorathoe v Body Corporate of Pontrailto (52676/2015) [2020] ZAGPPHC 483 (3 September 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

52676/2015

Judge

E van der Schyff

The court found that the default judgment granted on 25 August 2015 included amounts for which judgment had previously been granted, as well as interest and untaxed legal costs related to those amounts. This constituted an error in the proceedings, rendering the judgment erroneously sought within the meaning of Rule 42. The respondent conceded these errors and requested the court to rescind only the portion of the judgment relating to the previously adjudicated amounts, interest, and costs. The court held that, in such circumstances, rescission should be granted without requiring the applican…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Plus Petitio

Kayula NO and Others v Quality Plumbers and Hardware Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Another (942/2019)

Kayula NO and Others v Quality Plumbers and Hardware Contractors (Pty) Ltd and Another (942/2019) [2020] ZAECMHC 42 (18 August 2020)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

942/2019

Judge

Somacala

The court found that the applicants were not in willful default, as they were unaware of the summons due to the gross negligence of Anga Pasiya, who was not a party to the proceedings. The applicants provided a reasonable explanation for their default and demonstrated a bona fide defence by denying indebtedness and the existence of a credit agreement. The court held that the requirements for rescission under Rule 31(2)(b) were satisfied, and that the application was not brought merely to frustrate the respondent's claim. The court exercised its discretion to grant rescission and awarded costs…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Willful Default
• Bona Fide Defence

Sithole and Another v Astfin Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Another (3176/2016)

Sithole and Another v Astfin Gauteng (Pty) Ltd and Another (3176/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 397 (21 August 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

3176/2016

Judge

Andrews

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a prior order, finding no error, no proper explanation for a long delay, and valid service at the chosen domicilium.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Service Of Process
• Domicilium Citandi
• Rescission-of-judgment
• Uniform-rules-of-court-rule-31

Mountain View Investments v Altfund (Pty) Ltd (39167/2015)

Mountain View Investments v Altfund (Pty) Ltd (39167/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 943 (15 December 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

39167/2015

Judge

M J Mosopa

The High Court dismissed an application to condone late filing and rescind a default judgment, finding no full explanation for delay or bona fide defence.

• Rescission Of Default Judgment
• Condonation For Late Filing
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Rescission-of-default-judgment
• Condonation-for-late-filing

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd v Crockery Gladstone Farm (HCA15/2017)

Rainbow Farms (Pty) Ltd v Crockery Gladstone Farm (HCA15/2017) [2017] ZALMPPHC 35 (7 November 2017)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

HCA 15/2017

Judges

E M Makgoba, M F Kganyago, M S Sikhwari

Appeal upheld against refusal of rescission. The High Court held that absence of opposing affidavits meant default, and the judgment was erroneously granted.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Good Cause Requirement
• Postponement Of Proceedings

Minister of Police and Another v Yekani; In Re: Yekani v Minister of Police and Another (43463/2015)

Minister of Police and Another v Yekani; In Re: Yekani v Minister of Police and Another (43463/2015) [2017] ZAGPPHC 399 (14 July 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43463/2015

Judge

Holland-Müter

The High Court dismissed an application to rescind a default judgment against the Minister of Police and the National Commissioner of Police, ordering costs on an attorney-client scale.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• State Liability Act
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 31
• Rescission-of-judgment