Anglo American Emea Shared Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Limpop Propellers CC and Others (899/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 147 (17 February 2025)

Anglo American Emea Shared Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Limpop Propellers CC and Others (899/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 147 (17 February 2025)

The respondent failed to comply with the discovery order dated 20 February 2024, despite proper service and multiple opportunities to do so. The only reasonable inference is that the respondent is not serious about litigating as required by the rules of court. Although the respondent undertook to comply with the order by a specified date, the matter was not ready for hearing and the applicants were entitled to have the matter removed and to recover wasted costs on scale C from the respondent.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 147
Parties
Applicant: Anglo American Emea Shared Services (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Anglo American Services (UK) Ltd.; Respondent: Limpopo Propellers CC
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 February 2025
Case Number
899/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Striking Out Defence and Wasted Costs Order
Outcome
The matter was removed from the roll and the respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs on scale C.
Judges
GC Wright
Legal Topics
Discovery Non Compliance, Striking Out Defence, Wasted Costs, Service of Documents
Civil Procedure Discovery Non Compliance Striking Out Defence Wasted Costs Service of Documents

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Anglo American Emea Shared Services (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Anglo American Services (UK) Ltd.

Applicant

Limpopo Propellers CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Application for Striking Out Defence and Wasted Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent complied with the discovery order dated 20 February 2024.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's defence should be struck out for non-compliance with the discovery order.
  3. 3 Whether wasted costs should be awarded against the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent failed to comply with the discovery order dated 20 February 2024, despite proper service and multiple opportunities to do so. The only reasonable inference is that the respondent is not serious about litigating as required by the rules of court. Although the respondent undertook to comply with the order by a specified date, the matter was not ready for hearing and the applicants were entitled to have the matter removed and to recover wasted costs on scale C from the respondent.

Court Disposition

The matter was removed from the roll and the respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs on scale C.

Orders

  • The matter is removed from the roll.
  • The second defendant is to pay the wasted costs on scale C.