Lumka v BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (5301/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 641 (5 June 2023)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 641 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Lumka v BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (5301/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 641 (5 June 2023) Lumka v BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (5301/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 641 (5 June 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_641.html sino date 5 June 2023 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case Number: 5301/2021 In the matter between: MZWANDILE LUMKA Applicant and BMW FINANCIAL SERVICES SA (PTY) First Respondent SHERIFF BENONI NO Second Respondent Neutral Citation: Mzwandile Lumka vs BMW Financial Services SA (Pty) Ltd and Another (Case No. 5301/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 641 (5 June 2023) JUDGMENT STRYDOM, J [1] This is an application in which the first respondent, BMW Financial Services South Africa (Pty) Ltd asks for a rescission application previously brought by the applicant to be dismissed. [2] The reason why the first respondent set this application down for hearing in the unopposed court is because previously a court order was granted in terms of which the applicant, Mr. Lumka, was placed on terms to file a practice note and a list of authorities within a certain time period. [3] That time period has long gone. What then transpired when this application was now heard for the dismissal of the rescission application due to failure to comply with a court order some kind of practice note and list of authorities were filed last night. [4] That is many days out of time. What the applicant now request from this court is not to deal with the dismissal of the rescission application currently before me but to allow the rescission application to be heard on an opposed basis. The Court considered all the circumstances and the lateness of the practice note and list of authority filed late and concluded that this is just a delaying tactic to delay an order to be granted in terms of the main application which is for the return of a motor vehicle which was financed by BMW Financial Services and in terms of which payment of approximately R20 000.00 was to be made on a monthly basis. Payment was not made in terms of the agreement. [5] The Court is not going to let the matter be postponed further by allowing it to be enrolled on the opposed roll for hearing of the opposed rescission application. [6] My view is that Mr Lumka, the applicant in the rescission application, had ample opportunity to comply with the previous court order to file his practice note and list of authorities and he failed to do so. The order the Court will make in terms of the draft order will come down to an order that the rescission application is dismissed. [7] I make the order in terms of the draft order as amended which I will mark with an X. That is the order of the Court. R STRYDOM, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG For the Applicant: Adv. L. Pearce Instructed by: Thomson Wilks Inc For the First Respondent: Adv. E.M. Tshole Instructed by: Tshepo Mohapi Attorneys For the Second Respondent: Unknown Instructed by: Unknown Date of hearing: 08 May 2023 Date of Judgment: 08 May 202 sino noindex make_database footer start