News / Africa
South African court overturns R109 million judgment against Reuben Olifant
2 hrs ago |
45 Views
JOHANNESBURG - The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has rescinded a judgment that ordered businessman Reuben Olifant and three companies to pay more than R108.9 million to the Government Employees Pension Fund (GEPF) and the Compensation Fund, after finding that Olifant was not properly notified of the hearing date.
In a judgment delivered on October 7, 2026, Acting Judge H.P. van Nieuwenhuizen set aside the July 3, 2025 order insofar as it applied to Olifant, ruling that procedural requirements governing unopposed applications had not been followed.
The original judgment ordered Olifant, together with Purpose Agri (Pty) Ltd, Purpose Invest and Consult (Pty) Ltd and Elgatone Capital (Pty) Ltd, to pay R108,907,383.55 under a guarantee, plus interest and legal costs.
Olifant subsequently approached the High Court seeking rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court after learning of the judgment on August 6, 2025.
At the centre of the dispute was whether the applicants had complied with procedural requirements before obtaining judgment in Olifant's absence.
Court documents showed that the initial application was served on April 23, 2025, at an address in Paarl stipulated in the guarantee agreement. The sheriff's return indicated that the documents had been handed to a building manager identified as Mr Muller.
While the court was prepared to accept that the original application had been properly served, Acting Judge van Nieuwenhuizen found that a crucial procedural safeguard had been ignored.
The notice of motion did not specify the date on which the application would be heard if it remained unopposed. Although a notice of set down was later issued scheduling the hearing for July 3, 2025, that notice was never served on Olifant.
The judge ruled that this failure deprived Olifant of his right to know when the application would be heard and to attend the proceedings if he wished.
"The right safeguarded by the Rule is an opportunity to appear at an identified hearing," the judge said.
The GEPF and Compensation Fund argued that they had followed the Gauteng Consolidated Practice Directive relating to the electronic allocation of hearing dates and that it was therefore difficult to include a hearing date when the application was first filed.
However, the court rejected the argument, finding that practice directives cannot override the Uniform Rules of Court.
"The practical difficulty of electronic enrolment therefore cannot eliminate the stated day requirement in Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)," the judgment stated.
The court further noted that even if a hearing date was unavailable when the application was first issued, the respondents could have informed Olifant once the date had been allocated.
Acting Judge van Nieuwenhuizen held that the defect was material because Olifant was never notified of the actual hearing date before the judgment was granted.
"The respondents were not procedurally entitled to obtain it against him without the required notice," the judge ruled.
As a result, the court granted rescission without requiring Olifant to prove good cause or establish a substantive defence to the underlying claim.
However, the judgment does not determine whether Olifant is ultimately liable for the amount claimed under the guarantee.
The court emphasised that the validity and enforceability of the guarantee remain issues to be determined during the substantive proceedings and that the rescission merely restores Olifant's right to participate in a properly conducted hearing.
The rescission order applies only to Olifant and does not affect the judgment granted against the three companies named in the original order.
On costs, the court ordered the GEPF and Compensation Fund to pay Olifant's legal costs jointly and severally, including the costs of a previous application brought to stay execution of the judgment. Costs were awarded on a party-and-party basis, including counsel's fees on Scale B.
The court declined to grant the attorney-and-client costs sought by Olifant.
In a judgment delivered on October 7, 2026, Acting Judge H.P. van Nieuwenhuizen set aside the July 3, 2025 order insofar as it applied to Olifant, ruling that procedural requirements governing unopposed applications had not been followed.
The original judgment ordered Olifant, together with Purpose Agri (Pty) Ltd, Purpose Invest and Consult (Pty) Ltd and Elgatone Capital (Pty) Ltd, to pay R108,907,383.55 under a guarantee, plus interest and legal costs.
Olifant subsequently approached the High Court seeking rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) of the Uniform Rules of Court after learning of the judgment on August 6, 2025.
At the centre of the dispute was whether the applicants had complied with procedural requirements before obtaining judgment in Olifant's absence.
Court documents showed that the initial application was served on April 23, 2025, at an address in Paarl stipulated in the guarantee agreement. The sheriff's return indicated that the documents had been handed to a building manager identified as Mr Muller.
While the court was prepared to accept that the original application had been properly served, Acting Judge van Nieuwenhuizen found that a crucial procedural safeguard had been ignored.
The notice of motion did not specify the date on which the application would be heard if it remained unopposed. Although a notice of set down was later issued scheduling the hearing for July 3, 2025, that notice was never served on Olifant.
The judge ruled that this failure deprived Olifant of his right to know when the application would be heard and to attend the proceedings if he wished.
"The right safeguarded by the Rule is an opportunity to appear at an identified hearing," the judge said.
The GEPF and Compensation Fund argued that they had followed the Gauteng Consolidated Practice Directive relating to the electronic allocation of hearing dates and that it was therefore difficult to include a hearing date when the application was first filed.
However, the court rejected the argument, finding that practice directives cannot override the Uniform Rules of Court.
"The practical difficulty of electronic enrolment therefore cannot eliminate the stated day requirement in Rule 6(5)(b)(iii)," the judgment stated.
The court further noted that even if a hearing date was unavailable when the application was first issued, the respondents could have informed Olifant once the date had been allocated.
Acting Judge van Nieuwenhuizen held that the defect was material because Olifant was never notified of the actual hearing date before the judgment was granted.
"The respondents were not procedurally entitled to obtain it against him without the required notice," the judge ruled.
As a result, the court granted rescission without requiring Olifant to prove good cause or establish a substantive defence to the underlying claim.
However, the judgment does not determine whether Olifant is ultimately liable for the amount claimed under the guarantee.
The court emphasised that the validity and enforceability of the guarantee remain issues to be determined during the substantive proceedings and that the rescission merely restores Olifant's right to participate in a properly conducted hearing.
The rescission order applies only to Olifant and does not affect the judgment granted against the three companies named in the original order.
On costs, the court ordered the GEPF and Compensation Fund to pay Olifant's legal costs jointly and severally, including the costs of a previous application brought to stay execution of the judgment. Costs were awarded on a party-and-party basis, including counsel's fees on Scale B.
The court declined to grant the attorney-and-client costs sought by Olifant.
Source - Byo24News
Join the discussion
Loading comments…
