Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa v R1 Security Services CC (2021/43349) [2025] ZAGPJHC 94 (7 February 2025)

30 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Appeal — Leave to appeal — Application for leave to appeal against dismissal of rescission application — Applicant sought rescission of default judgment granted in prior proceedings — Court found no compelling reasons to grant leave as grounds of appeal would not yield different outcome — Distinction between facts of current application and previous case not sufficient to establish conflicting judgments — Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.






REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA



IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG


Case Number: 2021/43349








In the matter between:


PASSENGER RAIL AGENCY OF SOUTH AFRICA Applicant


and


R1 SECURITY SERVICES CC Respondent
______________________________________________________________________

Judgment in the application for leave to appeal
______________________________________________________________________

MODIBA J
[1] The applicant seeks leave to appeal this court’s judgment and order of 21
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
7 FEBRUARY 202 5
DATE




Page 2








November 2024, dismissing its application where it sought the rescission of an
order th is court granted by default on 22 February 2024. The respondent opposes
the application.

[2] I have considered the grounds for appeal as set out in the applicant’s application for
leave to appeal . I have also considered the written and oral submissions advanced on
behalf of the applicant as well as oral submissions advanced on behalf of the respondent,
guided by the provisions in section 1 7(1)(a) of the Superior Court’s Act .1 I find that
none of the grounds of appeal relied on by the applicant will yield a different outcome in
the contemplated appeal proceedings.

[3] The fact that the applicant has successfully rescinded an order granted in Passenger
Rail Services v Changing Tides2 (Changing Tides ) arising from the same cause of action
is not a compelling reason for this court to grant leave to appeal because the facts in the
two applications are materially distinguishable. Further, contrary to submissions made
on behalf of the applicant, the court in Changing Tides did not find that service of
summons on a driver at the applicant’s premises constitute s proper service.3 Thus, there
are no conflicting judgments in the two matters on this specific issue.

[4] In the premises, the application stands to be dismissed with costs. I therefore make the
following order:



1 Act 10 of 2013
2 Passenger Rail Services v Changing Tides Unreported judgment by Kekana AJ handed down on 13 November
2024 under case number Gauteng Local Division Case No: 38292/2021 .
3 See paragraph 11 of the judgment in Changing Tides.
Page 4








MODE OF DELIVERY: This judgment is handed down electronically by transmission to
the parties’ legal representatives by email, uploading on Caselines and release to SAFLII.
The date and time for delivery is deemed to be 10:00am.