20Twenty Projects (Pty) Ltd v Tsantsabane Local Municipality (404/2016) [2022] ZANCHC 23 (22 April 2022)

20Twenty Projects (Pty) Ltd v Tsantsabane Local Municipality (404/2016) [2022] ZANCHC 23 (22 April 2022)

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligations to deliver a response to the Rule 37(4) notice and to provide its discovery affidavit as required by the Uniform Rules. The technical objections raised by the respondent regarding the authority of the applicant's attorney and the validity of the affidavit were without merit, as substantial compliance with the regulations governing affidavits was demonstrated. The respondent's argument regarding non-compliance with Rule 30A was rejected, as the applicant's conduct was consistent with the requirements of Rule 35(7). The respondent's conduct in raising frivolous and vexatious objections, failing to honour undertakings,...

Citation
[2022] ZANCHC 23
Parties
Applicant: 20Twenty Projects (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tsantsabane Local Municipality
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 April 2022
Case Number
404/2016
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Compliance With Discovery and Pre Trial Procedures
Outcome
Application to compel granted; respondent ordered to comply with discovery and pre-trial obligations; costs awarded on attorney and own client scale.
Judges
Mamosebo
Legal Topics
Discovery Affidavit, Rule 37 Pre Trial, Rule 35 Discovery, Rule 30a Non Compliance, Commissioner of Oaths Affidavit, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Discovery Affidavit Rule 37 Pre Trial Rule 35 Discovery Rule 30a Non Compliance Commissioner of Oaths Affidavit Costs Order

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

20Twenty Projects (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Tsantsabane Local Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Compliance With Discovery and Pre Trial Procedures

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to deliver a response to the applicant's Rule 37(4) notice.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is required to deliver its discovery affidavit in compliance with Rule 35(1), 35(6), 35(8), and 35(10).
  3. 3 Whether the founding affidavit complies with the requirements for affidavits under Rule 6(1) and Regulation 4 of the Regulations Governing the Administration of an Oath or Affirmation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligations to deliver a response to the Rule 37(4) notice and to provide its discovery affidavit as required by the Uniform Rules. The technical objections raised by the respondent regarding the authority of the applicant's attorney and the validity of the affidavit were without merit, as substantial compliance with the regulations governing affidavits was demonstrated. The respondent's argument regarding non-compliance with Rule 30A was rejected, as the applicant's conduct was consistent with the requirements of Rule 35(7). The respondent's conduct in raising frivolous and vexatious objections, failing to honour undertakings,...

Court Disposition

Application to compel granted; respondent ordered to comply with discovery and pre-trial obligations; costs awarded on attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is compelled to deliver a response to the Notice in terms of Rule 37(4) served by the applicant on 13 August 2021 within 10 days of this order.
  • The respondent is compelled to deliver its discovery affidavit in compliance with the Notice in terms of Rule 35(1), 35(6), 35(8), and 35(10) served on 22 April 2021 within 10 days of this order.