2
JUDGMENT
ON APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
Mahosi, J
[1] This is an application brought by the applicant for leave to appeal against the whole
of this Court’s judgment and order handed down on 22 September 2025 to the Full Court.
The respondent opposes the application.
[2] The application is premised on the basis that this Court erred in finding that the
respondent complied with sections 129 and 130 of the National Credit Act 1 (the NCA)
regarding the delivery of the section 29 notice and the timing of the summons. The
applicant further contends that this Court misapplied the principles laid down in Kubyana
v Standard Bank of South Africa Ltd (“Kubyana”)2 and Sebola and Another v Standard
Bank of South Africa Ltd (“Sebola”)3. Furthermore, the applicant avers that this Court
erred in finding that he failed to provide a reasonable explanation for his default and failed
to establish a bona fide defence and asserts that it should have rescinded the default
judgment under Rule 42(1)(a) on the basis that it was erroneously granted.
[3] The test for leave to appeal is trite and bears no repetition. Having had regard to
both parties’ submissions and arguments , this Court is satisfied that the applicant has
failed to demonstrate that there is misdirection of fact or law in its judgment and that there
is a reasonable prospect that another Court would come to a different conclusion. The
applicant’s arguments are, at best, a rehash of the contentions already fully considered
and rejected in the rescission application. Therefore, t his application ought to be
dismissed.
[4] The respondent sought a punitive costs order on the scale between the attorney
and the client. While the applicant’s conduct in delaying proceedings and raising
1 Act 34 of 2005, as amended.
2 2014 (3) SA 56 (CC)
3 2012 (5) SA 142 (CC)