Dean v Nedbank Limited (2023/132715) [2026] ZAGPJHC 146 (20 February 2026)

45 Reportability
Contract Law

Brief Summary

Rescission of Judgment — Default Judgment — Suretyship — Applicant seeking rescission of default judgment for R1,700,000 granted against him — Applicant contending default not wilful and presenting bona fide defence of rectification of suretyship agreement — Respondent opposing application, asserting proper service and lack of good cause — Court finding applicant failed to demonstrate sufficient grounds for rescission and that defence lacked merit.

2


BHOOLA AJ,
Introduction

[1] This is an application for the rescission of a default judgment which was granted
on 12 March 2024 against the applicant , wherein he was ordered to pay the
respondent’s R1, 700 000.00 together with the interests and costs.

[2] The judgment arose arising from a suretyship which was concluded on 17
August 2022, in favour of the respondent for the debts and obligations of the principal
debtor Ubuntu Plastics (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) (“Ubuntu Plastics”), who was placed
under voluntary liquidation on 9 February 2023.

[3] The applicant seeks a rescission of th e said judgment, contending that his
default was not wilful, that he has demonstrated a good cause for the rescission by
providing a bona fide defence of rectification of the suretyship agreement.

[4] The respondent opposes the application, a sserting that service was properly
effected at the applicant’s chosen domicilium address, that the applicant has not
shown good cause for his default, and that his defence is misguided and without
prospects of success.

Factual Background
[5] The applicant concluded a suretyship in favour of the respondent on 17 August
2022 in respect of the debts of the principle debtor Ubuntu Plastics to the respondent.

[6] The respondent instituted proceedings against the applicant to recover monies
owed to it by Ubuntu Plastics which the applicant had bound himself as surety and co-
principal debtor for.