South Africa: High Courts - Gauteng Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: High Courts - Gauteng >> 2009 >> [2009] ZAGPHC 7

| Noteup | LawCite

Plumbtastic Plumbing CC and Another v Centurion Home Centre (Pty) Ltd t/a Home Centre Timber City In re: Centurion Home Centre (Pty) Ltd t/a Home Centre Timber City v Plumbtastic Plumbing CC and Another (2160/08) [2009] ZAGPHC 7 (28 January 2009)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format




IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA


(TRANSVAAL PROVINCIAL DIVISION)


NOT REPORTABLE CASE NO.: 2160/08

In the matter between DATE: 28/1/2009


PLUMBTASTIC PLUMBING CC 1st Applicant


IAN ROBERT SWINGTON 2nd Applicant


and


CENTURION HOME CENTRE (PTY) LTD t.a

HOME CENTRE TIMBERCITY Respondent


In re:


CENTURION HOME CENTRE (PTY) LTD t/a


HOME CENTRE Plaintiff


And


PLUMBTASTIC PLUMBING CC 1st Defendant


IAN ROBERT SWINTON 2nd Defendant


CORAM: EBERSOHN AJ


DATE HEARD: 20th August 2008


JUDGMENT HANDED DOWN ON: 28th January 2009







______________________________________________________________


JUDGMENT

________________________________________________________________


EBERSOHN AJ.

[1.] This is an opposed application to set aside a default judgment.


[2.] It appears that the plaintiff obtained a default judgment on the 14th February 2008 under Case no. 2160/2008 against both applicants. This application then followed.


[3.] As reason for the delay to timeously file an appearance to defend the second applicant stated that there was an agreement between the defendant’s attorney and the plaintiff’s attorney that the appearance to defend could be faxed, which was done.


[4.] The plaintiff’s attorney disregarded the faxed appearance to defend, he denies the said agreement, and then applied for default judgment which the applicant regard as an irregularity.


[5.] I find the reason advanced by the defendants as credible.


[6.] The defence raised in the application is that the provisions of the National Credit Act, No 34 of 2005, apply and that the plaintiff did not comply with the peremptory provisions thereof. This was denied by the plaintiff.


[7.] It is not possible on the papers, to decide on the merits against the defendants regarding the defence raised and the matter will have to go on trail.


[8.] The judgment was written on the 28th of August 2008 but the file went missing and that delayed the handing down of this judgement.



[9.] I accordingly make the following order.:


  1. The default judgement granted against both defendants on the 14th February 2008 in case no. 2160/08 is set aside and leave is granted to the two defendants to defend the case on the merits.

  2. The costs of this application will be costs in case 2160/08.


______________________________

P.Z. EBERSOHN

ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT



Counsel for 1st and 2nd Applicant Adv. A.J. Swanepoel


1st and 2nd Applicant's attorneys JAY attorneys

Tel.:(012) 362 5702


Counsel for the Respondent Adv. L. Pretorius


Respondents’ attorney Mark W. Nixon

Tel.:(012) 430 4303