South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

You are here:
SAFLII >>
Databases >>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >>
2014 >>
[2014] ZAGPPHC 841
| Noteup
| LawCite
Mkhonza v Absa Bank Limited and Another (7819/2009) [2014] ZAGPPHC 841 (27 October 2014)
Download original files |
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 7819/2009
Date heard: 27 October 2014
Date of judgment: 27 October 2014
Not reportable
Not of interest to other judges
In the matter between:
WISEMAN SINOTHI MKHONZA..................................................................................................Applicant
and
ABSA BANK LIMITED..............................................................................................................1st Defendant
THE SHERIFF: CENTURION EAST......................................................................................2nd Defendant
JUDGMENT
A.M.L. PHATUDI J:
[1] The applicant is the defendant in the main action. The defendant in the main action instituted this application for rescission of judgment granted after the hearing of the summary judgment application.
[2] Both parties were legally represented when the application for summary judgment was heard. Both parties made submissions before the said court. After hearing the said submissions by counsel, summary judgment was granted.
[3] The defendant’s/applicant’s recourse ought to have been an appeal against the said summary judgment. The defendant’s/applicant’s name has been called out three times outside of court but to no avail. In the absence of any response from the call out, and having noted the withdrawal of the applicant’s attorneys of record, it is clear that there will be no appearance on behalf of the applicant
[4] Having read the application and having heard the respondent’s counsel, I am of the view that the applicant has been ill advice. The application for rescission of judgment is not a proper procedure to follow after the granting of the summary judgment. The application for rescission is therefore a non-starter in this instance.
[5] With regards to costs, costs follow the event. The respondents succeed with the defence hereto and they are entitled to their costs. However, Ms Loitering pleads for costs on a punitive scale as the agreement made provisions thereto.
The following order is thus made.
Order:
The applicant’s application for rescission of judgment is dismissed with costs on attorney and client scale.
A.M.L Phatudi
Judge of the High Court
On behalf of the Applicant: MB Tshabangu Inc
404 Ancore Building
Robert Sebokwe Street
Sunnyside
Pretoria
(Withdrawn)
No Appearance in person
On behalf of the Respondent: Hack Stupel and Ross
2nd Floor
Standard Bank Chambers
Church Square
Pretoria
Adv. U Loitering