The Challenge Of Setting Aside A Small Claims Court Judgment

In Magill v Ma Ipser and Widevision Travel, the Western Cape High Court ("HC") handed down judgment in an opposed review application in terms of section 46 of the Small Claims Act 61 of 1984 ("the Act").The HC considered the limited grounds on which a judgment of the Small Claims Court ("SCC") may be reviewed.

Factual background

Magill contracted with Widevision Travel ("Widevision") to provide services as a hiking guide at an agreed upon fee structure. After two clients cancelled due to food poisoning, Widevision offered to pay Magill 50% of the agreed upon amount. Magill initially refused but later accepted the proposal and confirmed that he would continue providing his services. After failing to arrive at the appointed place on time, Magill repudiated the contract and cancelled the mountain hike. Despite this, Magill invoiced Widevision for ZAR2 050, of which Widevision made payment of R800 and withheld the balance for damages caused by Magill's tardiness.