Pretoria - A judge questioned why the sheriff attached a summons meant for Ford Motor Company on the car manufacturer’s door at its Silverton plant, instead of handing it over to one of the people there.
This step by the sheriff resulted in a default judgment against Ford as it had no idea it was being sued.
Several of Ford’s workers turned to the Gauteng High Court, Pretoria in March, regarding a contract dispute, in which it claimed compensation.
As Ford never answered to the summons, the workers obtained a default judgment against the company.
In turning to court to ask for the order against it to be rescinded, Ford said it had had no knowledge of the legal action against it, as it had neither received the summons nor was notified about it. It became aware of it only when the sheriff came to attach property, on the strength of the writ of execution that was issued for payment of the outstanding money, as per the court’s earlier order.
The sheriff said he did serve the summons on Ford, as he fixed it on the main door of its Silverton plant.
The workers applied for a default judgment after six months had lapsed since the service of the summons.
Ford argued that apart from never having received the summons, the correct procedure was that the workers were supposed to have issued a notice of set down and served it on Ford, which was also not done, further rendering the judgment unlawful.
The motoring giant added that it has a bona fide defence and should be given an opportunity to defend the action instituted by the workers.
The sheriff said that “after a diligent search and enquiry at the given address, no other manner of service was possible”. He said he could find no one at Ford to give the summons to.
Acting Judge MS Makamu said there was no indication that the sheriff made enquiries to specific people or employees of Ford.
“He does not say the security or any other employee refused to accept service but only says diligent search was done and there was no other manner of service.”
He said it is not imaginable that a huge company like Ford, with a lot of assets in the form of new cars, could be left without security personnel. The judge said there were surely people around to direct the sheriff to the office where he could have served the documents on an individual representing the company.
Ford said there were many buildings and gates, and the sheriff should have at least described the door he affixed the summons to.
The judge said when the workers realised six months down the line that Ford did not respond to their summons, they should have at least alerted the motoring company that they were heading to court.
“The applicant (Ford) demonstrated that it did not fail to enter an appearance to defend wilfully as they never received the alleged summons. The applicant would have entered and appearance to defend and file pleadings on time. The default judgment was erroneously sought and erroneously granted,” the judge said in rescinding the earlier judgment.
Pretoria News