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

Anthony Wilton Thinane Incorporated v Ralebipi (17185/2017)

Anthony Wilton Thinane Incorporated v Ralebipi (17185/2017) [2025] ZAGPJHC 553 (9 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

17185/2017

Judge

Khashane La M Manamela

The High Court partially rescinded an order striking out a law firm’s defence, finding that the sanction was erroneously granted and reinstating the plea.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Expert Evidence
• Condonation
• Striking Out Of Plea
• Rescission-of-judgment

Tabraz Enterprises (Pty) Limited t/a Copper Chimney v Kitty Naicker Property Holdings CC t/a Waterfall Centre (2024/013591)

Tabraz Enterprises (Pty) Limited t/a Copper Chimney v Kitty Naicker Property Holdings CC t/a Waterfall Centre (2024/013591) [2025] ZAGPPHC 454 (5 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2024/013591

Judge

Nyathi

Urgent application to rescind or suspend a provisional liquidation order was dismissed because the applicant was absent by choice, lacked locus standi, and failed on interim relief.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Provisional Liquidation
• Locus Standi
• Interim Relief
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Costs Orders

Minister of Police v Phiri (69840/2019)

Minister of Police v Phiri (69840/2019) [2024] ZAGPPHC 776 (8 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

69840/2019

Judge

Kekana

The court found that the applicant, having been properly served and notified, deliberately elected not to participate in the default judgment proceedings. This election does not satisfy the 'absence' requirement under Rule 42(1)(a), as clarified in Zuma v Secretary of the Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture. The applicant also failed to demonstrate that the judgment was erroneously sought or granted, as the procedural requirements were met and the applicant admitted jurisdiction in its plea. Furthermore, the application for rescission was brought more than a year…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Default Judgment
• Jurisdiction
• Institution Of Legal Proceedings Against Organs Of State Act
• Condonation

Mashilo v Lemmer and Others (Variation) (33669/2021)

Mashilo v Lemmer and Others (Variation) (33669/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 330 (12 April 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

33669/2021

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The High Court varied an earlier order under Rule 42(1)(b) to correct patent errors in the judgment and order, including respondent references and the operative relief.

• Variation Of Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Patent Error Correction
• Civil-procedure
• Rule-42
• Variation-of-judgment

Maluleka and Another v Limpopo Society of Advocates (7113/2017)

Maluleka and Another v Limpopo Society of Advocates (7113/2017) [2024] ZALMPPHC 14 (15 February 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

7113/2017

Judges

Tsoka, Raulinga, Bresler

The court found that the applicant failed to file an answering affidavit despite being given ample opportunity and was therefore in default. The facts alleged by the applicant regarding prior proceedings in the Pretoria High Court were irrelevant to the present application, as the parties and jurisdiction differed. The court held that there was no error in the granting of the order striking the applicant off the roll of advocates, and that the requirements of Rule 42(1)(c) were not met. The preliminary point of lis pendens raised by the respondent was dismissed, as there is no prohibition aga…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Striking Off Roll
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Admission Of Advocates Act
• Legal Practice Act

Road Accident Fund v Moeng

Road Accident Fund v Moeng [2023] ZAGPPHC 500; 91545/2016 (30 June 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

91545/2016

Judge

Makhoba

The court found that the defendant failed to provide a reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay in bringing the rescission application, which was instituted eleven months after the order was granted. The internal administrative problems and cancellation of the panel of attorneys did not constitute good cause for condonation. The matter had already been delayed excessively, and further delay would prejudice the plaintiff and risk expert reports becoming stale. The defendant did not demonstrate any prospect of success should condonation be granted. Therefore, condonation was not in t…

Source excerpt

• Condonation
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Delay In Litigation

Ramanamane v SB Guarantee (RF) (Pty) Ltd (52853/21)

Ramanamane v SB Guarantee (RF) (Pty) Ltd (52853/21) [2023] ZAGPJHC 592 (29 May 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

52853/21

Judge

Van Aswegen

Leave to appeal was refused in a foreclosure rescission matter. The court found no basis to disturb the settlement order or treat the applicant's business plan as a defence.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Settlement Agreement
• Foreclosure
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Monetary Judgment
• Rescission-of-judgment

Valditime (Pty) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (2021/39886)

Valditime (Pty) Ltd and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (2021/39886) [2023] ZAGPJHC 335 (14 April 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/39886

Judge

MJ Engelbrecht

The High Court partly rescinded a summary judgment against Valditime and its surety, reducing the amounts to reflect correct interest calculations.

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Summary Judgment
• Interest Rate Calculation
• Suretyship
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 42
• Rescission-of-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