About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPJHC 321
|
|
Taunyane v Emfuleni Local Municipality and Another (2025/127540) [2026] ZAGPJHC 321 (30 March 2026)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number:
2025-127540
(1)
REPORTABLE: YES / NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: YES/NO
(3)
REVISED: YES/NO
In
the matter between:
AUBREY
TAUNYANE
Applicant
And
EMFULENI
LOCAL MUNICIPALITY
First Respondent
SHERIFF
OF THE COURT
Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
STRYDOM, J
[1]
This is an urgent application for a stay of
execution of a default judgment granted against the applicant. The
application is opposed
by the first respondent.
[2]
The first issue concerns condonation for
the late filing of the answering affidavit. The answering affidavit
was filed out of time,
but the delay was minimal and adequately
explained. There is no demonstrable prejudice to the applicant. In
the exercise of my
discretion, and in the interests of justice,
condonation is granted.
[3]
I am satisfied that the matter is urgent.
The execution process had commenced, including steps against the
applicant’s assets
and bank account. The prejudice faced by the
applicant is immediate and ongoing. The urgency was not self-created,
and any delay
in launching the application was not undue in the
circumstances.
[4]
The first respondent raised several
technical objections. That the applicant, through his legal
representative, was less than precise
in his preparation of the
notice of motion is indeed so.
[5]
First, it was contended that the notice of
motion is defective in that prayer 3 is incomplete. While it is so
that the word “suspended”
was omitted, it is clear from
the context and the relief sought that the applicant seeks a stay of
execution. This Court is entitled,
specifically in urgent
applications, to adopt a purposive approach to the notice of motion
and to read in the missing word as part
of the alternative and
further relief sought.
[6]
Second, the use of the existing case number
was criticised. This constitutes an overly technical approach. The
present proceedings
arise directly from the default judgment granted
under the same case number. No prejudice has been demonstrated. In an
urgent application,
this issue should not determine the outcome of
the matter.
[7]
These objections do not render the
application defective.
[8]
I am satisfied that a rescission
application had been filed prior to the launching of this urgent
application. this matter. In any
event, this Court retains a wide
discretion under Rule 45A and its inherent jurisdiction to regulate
its own process and prevent
injustice.
[9]
The
applicant must establish a basis for interim relief.
The evidence
demonstrates that a plea was delivered only one day late.
Notwithstanding this, a default judgment was obtained. The
explanation for the delay is reasonable, and the delay itself is
minimal.
[10]
Furthermore, the applicant has demonstrated
a bona fide dispute regarding the alleged overpayment of R708 069.28.
The dispute involves
complex calculations and cannot be resolved on
the papers in these proceedings. Accordingly, there is a prima facie
defence with
prospects of success in the rescission application.
[11]
The execution process has already commenced
and gives rise to a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm. The
balance of convenience
favours preserving the status quo pending the
determination of the rescission application.
[12]
In all the circumstances, I am satisfied
that it is in the interests of justice to grant a stay of execution
pending the outcome
of the rescission application.
[13]
The following order is made:
The late filing of the
first respondent’s answering affidavit is condoned.
2. The
application is heard as one of urgency.
3.
The writ of execution and operation of the default judgment issued
under case number 2025/127540 against the applicant are
stayed until
the final decision on the rescission application.
4. Costs are
reserved for determination in the rescission application.
R. STRYDOM
JUDGE OF THE HIGH
COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
Heard
on:
17, 18 & 20 March 2026
Delivered
on:
30 March 2026
Appearances:
For the
Applicant:
Adv. L. Tshigomana
Instructed
by:
Mudzusi Molobela Inc
For the 1
st
Respondent:
Adv. T. Mogase (Sebata)
With:
Adv. T. Malungani
Instructed
by:
Seleka Attorneys