REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case No: 48783/2018
Reportable: No
Of interest to other Judges: No
Revised: No
___
SIGNATURE
Date: 28 January 2025
In the matter between:
SHAHRINA RAMPHAUL 1st Applicant/ Defendant
ZIA GROUP (PTY) LTD 2nd Applicant/ Defendant
(Registration no. 2011/137900/07)
GLOBAL VISA SOLUTIONS (PTY) LTD 3rd Applicant/ Defenda nt
(Registration no. 2013/097511/07)
ZUBEIDA RAMPHAUL 4th Applicant/ Defendant
NASHMEIA RAMPHAUL 5th Applicant/ Defendant
THANDI MULAUDZI 6th Applicant/ Defendant
and
JINDAL MINING SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD 1st Respondent/ Plaintiff
2
(Registration no. 2000/013253/07)
(In business rescue)
JINDAL AFRICA INVESTMENTS (PTY) LTD 2nd Respondent/ Plaintiff
(Registration no. 2008/025072/07))
(In business rescue)
EASTERN SOLID FUELS (PTY) LTD 3rd Respondent/ Plaintiff
(Registration no. 2004/009062/07)
(In business rescue)
JUDGEMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
_____________________________________________________________________________________________
MOOKI J
1 The applicants seek leave to appeal the order granting the respondents
default judgement. The grounds for the application are essentially the
following, namely:
1.1 That the court erred in granting default judgement because the
plaintiffs had not set out sufficient proof on oath to sustain the relief
sought , as stipulated in Rule 31(2)(a).
1
.2 The matter ought to have been heard in the opposed motion cour t
because the defendants had filed an affidavit opposing default
judgement .
2 The defendants accepted, during the hearing, that annexure A3 to the
particulars of claim detailed the make-up of the quantum claimed by the
plaintiffs. The defendants also accepted that the plaintiffs referenced that
annexure in their affidavit in support of default judgement. I t was
3
submitted on behalf of the defendants that the plaintiffs would have
provided sufficient support had annexure A3 being annexed to the affidavit
supporting default judgement.
3 It was submitted on behalf of the plaintiffs that the claim by the plaintiffs is
a liquidated demand, as set out in annexure A3, and that the plaintiffs were
entitled to default judgement witho ut further evidence. It was further
submitted that the plaintiffs had, in any event, supplied the necessary
evidence in their affidavit.
4 The second primary ground for the application is that the application for
default judgement became opposed, with the defendants filing an affidavit
contesting the relief being sought, and, as a result, the matter had to have
been referred to the opposed motion court. The defendants reference d
Capitec Bank v Mangena and Another1 and Bhembe and Another v Industrial
Development Incorporation of South Africa2 as authorities.
5 It was submitted for the plaintiffs that the defendants had no warrant to file
oppos ing papers or to place a version before court opposing the relief being
sought. That was because their defence had been struck.
6 The plaintiffs quantified claim A as set out in annexure A3 to their
particulars of claim. The plaintiffs incorporated annexure A3 by reference
in their aff idavit in support of the grant of default judgement. There was
1 [2023] ZAGPJHC 225
2 [2023] ZAGPJHC 180
4
thus cogent evidence, in the application for default judgement, justifying
relief sought in claim A.
7 There was no basis to have referred the application for default judgement
for adjudication in the opposed motion court. The authorities cited by the
plaintiffs are not on point. Those auth orities essentially concerned the need
for a court to pay heed to all affidavits when a court is considering
dismissing a claim or striking out a defence. This court was not adjudicating
a dismissal of a claim or a striking out of a defence.
8 Counsel for the defendants had no answer to the question whether the
filing of opposing papers would not make nonsense of the order striking
out the defendants ’ defence. That was because the filing of papers opposing
default judgement would allow the defendants to raise a defence, when
there was an extant order striking out such a defence. The applicants could
not refer the court to any precedence given the facts of this matter, namely
a litigant being allowed to raise a defence to a claim for default judgement
when there was an extant order striking out the pleaded defence.
9 The defendants seek leave to appeal based on section 17(1) of the Superior
Courts Act, 10 of 2013. The defendants have not met the requirements for
the relief being sought. I am not persuaded that the appeal would have a
reasonable prospect of success.
10 I make the following order:
(1) The application is dismissed.
5
(2) The first to sixth applicants are ordered to pay costs, the one paying to
be absolved.
O Mooki
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Counsel for the applicants : T Mirtle
Instructed by: Ulrich Roux & Associates
Counsel for the respondents: X van Niekerk
Instructed by: Sanusha Govender Attorneys
Heard: 27 January 202 5
Decided: 28 January 2025