Eswatini High Court: A Single Judge Bench comprising of T.M. Mlangeni, J., granted an application for rescission of default judgment.
This matter was with regard to an application for rescission of default judgment that was given against the applicant. The respondent submitted that the application for rescission was defective on the ground that the applicant did not mention the legal regime under which he seeks rescission. It is to be noted that such applications can be filed on one or more legal regime, either under Rule 31, Rule 42 or common law. Applicant is supposed to show good cause in his founding papers satisfying conditions attached with it as was mentioned in the case of Chetty v. Law Society, Transvaal, 1985(2) SA 750. The issue before Court was whether there was a requirement of stating the rule or regime under which an application for rescission of judgment or order was filed. To this issue Court was of the view that there was no such legal requirement of stating the rule or regime under which the applicant is seeking rescission of judgment or order. The Court while perusing if the applicant had made bona fide defence with prospects of success observed that besides allegation of fraud, applicant contended to have paid all dues to the respondent therefore if the above is proved it will be a bona fide defence. Therefore, application for rescission was granted. [Eugene Rochat v. Fernando Julius Manjeia, (1734/16) [2018] SZHC (184), dated 10-08-2018]
