Absa Bank Limited (Absa Bank), the flagship commercial bank operating within South Africa as a wholly owned subsidiary of the Absa Group, has successfully defended a bid by South African businessman, Ivan Newell Bjorkman and Her Majesty’s Guesthouse to overturn a summary judgment granted in its favour, with the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg finding that the applicants failed to establish sufficient grounds for rescission or show a reasonable prospect of defending the bank’s claim.

The dispute arose from a summary judgment granted by Justice Wanless on March 4, 2024, after Bjorkman and the guesthouse had filed opposition papers but failed to appear when the matter was heard. Justice Moultrie dismissed the rescission application and ordered Bjorkman and Her Majesty’s Guesthouse CC to jointly and severally pay Absa Bank’s legal costs, including counsel’s costs on scale B.

Court rejects bid to overturn Absa Bank judgment

Ivan Bjorkman later sought rescission, arguing that he had misunderstood the hearing date following discussions with an acquaintance and that circumstances surrounding the preparation of his opposition contributed to his failure to attend court.

The court rejected those arguments, finding that the applicants had not demonstrated an error in the original proceedings or sufficient cause for their absence. Moultrie also rejected a last-minute postponement request from the applicants’ newly appointed attorneys. Their previous lawyers had withdrawn in June 2024, while the new legal representatives came on record shortly before the May 2026 hearing.

The applicants cited Bjorkman’s illness and concerns over the adequacy of the existing rescission application as reasons for the postponement. The court found neither sufficient to delay the matter, noting that Bjorkman had participated in preparing a joint practice note about a month before the hearing without indicating that new attorneys would be appointed.

Applicants failed to establish defence to Absa Bank’s claim

The court found that the applicants could not rely on Rule 32 of the Uniform Rules of Court because the original summary judgment had not been granted by default. They therefore had to establish grounds under Rule 42(1)(a) or the common law. Moultrie found that they had failed to identify any procedural error in the granting of the judgment.

Under the common-law test, the applicants also needed to demonstrate sufficient cause for their failure to attend court, act bona fide and show a reasonable prospect of successfully defending Absa’s claim.

A key weakness was that they did not dispute their indebtedness to Absa Bank under the relevant agreements.

Bjorkman’s opposition affidavit had also failed to disclose a defence to the bank’s claim. The court found that his reliance on an acquaintance, Summerly, who allegedly misunderstood Absa’s position regarding the summary judgment proceedings, did not provide sufficient justification for failing to attend court.

Property dispute did not defeat Absa’s claim

The applicants also raised allegations concerning property securing their indebtedness, claiming that Absa had refused to consent to a subdivision and had misplaced title deeds, causing delays in concluding the loan.

Moultrie did not determine whether Absa’s conduct could give rise to separate claims but found that the allegations did not constitute a defence to the bank’s claim for payment.

At most, the allegations could support unliquidated counterclaims, which the court found would not amount to a defence to summary judgment. The March 2024 judgment therefore remains intact, while Bjorkman and Her Majesty’s Guesthouse CC are liable for Absa’s costs.