- The Gauteng Department of Community Safety told the State Attorney to defend a claim by Universal Knowledge Software and to appoint senior counsel, but no counsel was appointed.
- The company got summary judgment for about R548 750 after nobody showed up for the department at the hearing.
- Acting Judge J Mitchell turned down the department’s application to set aside the judgment, saying it had failed to show proper grounds for rescission.
When Universal Knowledge started legal action in July 2024, the department told the State Attorney to defend the claim and appoint senior counsel. But no counsel was appointed. A plea was filed in October 2024, but the department later said it was just a bare denial of the company’s claim.
The dispute comes from a contract signed in March 2023, which required Universal Knowledge to set up a knowledge management framework for the department. The contract had six milestones.
The department agreed that the company had finished three milestones and paid for those, but refused to pay for the last three. It said the work had not been done properly, while Universal Knowledge insisted it had completed all six milestones. The company sent out three invoices that added up to about R548 750.
Summary judgment granted
Universal Knowledge went to court for summary judgment in November 2024, saying it had done the outstanding milestones and that the department just denied owing the invoices. The application was emailed to the State Attorney, and a notice of set down followed in May 2025.
Although the State Attorney filed a notice to oppose just before the hearing, nobody appeared for the department when the matter was heard in June 2025. The High Court granted summary judgment and ordered the department to pay the outstanding amount.
The department said it only found out about the judgment in July 2025. It claimed it had told the State Attorney to apply to have the judgment set aside and tried to follow up with emails and phone calls.
Universal Knowledge then took steps to enforce the judgment by getting a writ of execution in September 2025. The department then appointed private attorneys through its internal procurement process and filed its rescission application in October 2025. By then, some of its assets had already been attached.
In November 2025, the High Court cancelled the writ because Universal Knowledge had not followed the State Liability Act. But this did not overturn the original judgment requiring payment.
Judge rejects rescission application
The department argued that the summary judgment should be set aside because it did not know about the proceedings and did not have a chance to defend itself. But Acting Judge J Mitchell found that the summary judgment application and hearing notice had been properly served on the State Attorney.
The judge said being physically present in court was not what mattered. The important thing was whether the right procedures were followed to give the department a chance to take part.
The judge also found that the department had not paid enough attention to its case between July 2024 and June 2025. Acting Judge Mitchell said government departments are expected to be more diligent when they are involved in court cases.
Dispute about the company’s performance
The department also argued that Universal Knowledge had not disclosed important information when it asked for summary judgment. This included the department’s unhappiness with the company’s work, the breach notice, and the later cancellation of the contract.
But the judge said these were arguments about the original contract dispute and did not show that the summary judgment had been wrongly granted. The judge said the department should have properly raised its defence when the court was deciding on the summary judgment application.
“Rescission, in other words, is not a backdoor appeal,” Acting Judge Mitchell said. The department also did not give enough evidence to show it had a real defence to the company’s claim.
The judge dismissed the rescission application and ordered the department to pay Universal Knowledge’s legal costs on the party-and-party scale, including the costs of one counsel on Scale B. The original judgment requiring payment of about R548 750 therefore still stands.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
