Anglo American Emea Shared Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Limpop Propellers CC and Others (899/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 147 (17 February 2025)
- Citation
- [2025] ZAGPJHC 147
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 899/2020
More details
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Panel
- GC Wright
- Case number
- 899/2020
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
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.
02
Material facts
Parties
Anglo American Emea Shared Services (Pty) Ltd
Applicant Counsel: Adv Mark SmitAnglo American Services (UK) Ltd.
Applicant Counsel: Adv Mark SmitLimpopo Propellers CC
Respondent Counsel: Adv T Malungani03
Procedural history
Posture
Civil Procedure / Application for Striking Out Defence and Wasted Costs Order
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the respondent complied with the discovery order dated 20 February 2024.
- 02
Whether the respondent's defence should be struck out for non-compliance with the discovery order.
- 03
Whether wasted costs should be awarded against the respondent.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicants argued that the respondent failed to comply with the court's discovery order dated 20 February 2024, despite proper service of all relevant documents and repeated opportunities to comply. They submitted that the respondent's continued non-compliance demonstrated a lack of seriousness in litigating the matter and justified the striking out of the defence and an order for wasted costs.
- Respondent
- The respondent conceded proper service of all documents but claimed that its previous attorneys had let it down, resulting in non-compliance. Through newly appointed counsel, the respondent undertook to comply with the discovery order by 4pm on 27 February 2025 and requested that the matter not proceed to hearing until compliance was effected.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Uniform Rules of Court, Rule 35
A party's failure to comply with a discovery order may justify the striking out of its defence and the awarding of wasted costs.
- 02
South African case law on procedural fairness
Proper service of documents and repeated opportunities to comply are relevant factors in determining whether a party is acting in good faith in litigation.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
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.
Obiter and limits
- The respondent's last-minute engagement of new counsel and vague explanations for non-compliance do not excuse its procedural failures.
- Litigants must take court orders seriously and ensure compliance to avoid adverse procedural consequences.
Court disposition
The matter was removed from the roll and the respondent was ordered to pay the wasted costs on scale C.
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- The second defendant is to pay the wasted costs on scale C.
Source and reliance status
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Judgment
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION,
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 899/2020
1. Reportable: No
2. Of interest to other judges: No
3. Revised
17 February 2024
ANGLO AMERICAN EMEA
SHARED
SERVICES (PTY) LTD
First Applicant
ANGLO AMERICAN SERVICES (UK) LTD. Second Applicant
And
LIMPOPO
PROPELLERS CC
Respondent
In Re:
SERVICES (PTY) LTD
First Plaintiff
ANGLO AMERICAN SERVICES (UK) LTD Second Plaintiff
POXX ENTERPRISES (PTY) LTD
First Defendant
LIMPOPO
PROPELLERS CONSULTING CC
Second Defendant
JOSHUA
MACHUTE RAPOO
Third Defendant
PATRICK
TEBOGO RAPOO
Fourth Defendant
THAMMY
SEKGOBELA
Fifth Defendant
LE -THA-NELLY KGWEBO A TIRO (PTY) LTD Sixth Defendant
BAIPUSHI CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL (PTY) LTD Seventh Defendant
FIRST RAND BANK
LIMITED
T/A
FIRST NATIONAL BANK
Eighth Defendant
ABSA
BANK LIMITED
Ninth Defendant
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
1. The applicant companies instituted action against a number of defendants.
2. The second defendant, now the present respondent, Limpopo, filed a plea. Later the applicants’ attorneys sought discovery by the respondent. Such was not forthcoming and on 20 February 2024 this court ordered discovery by the respondent within five days. The order allowed the applicants to approach the court for a striking out of the respondent’s defence. Discovery was not forthcoming.
3. A striking out application was launched on 6 March 2024. The applicants sought the striking out of the defence and judgement for the money amounts claimed in the action.
4. The striking out application and the documents preceding it were all served timeously on the respondent’s then attorneys. These attorneys withdrew as attorneys of record on 19 April 2024.
5. On the day of the hearing, 31 July 2024, Mr Makaepea, apparently the moving force behind Limpopo, appeared personally. The judge hearing the matter postponed the application to afford the respondent an opportunity to oppose the application.
6. New attorneys came on board for Limpopo and an answering affidavit was filed. It is conceded in this affidavit that there was proper service of all documents hitherto. It is stated vaguely that Limpopo was let down by its former attorneys.
7. To date, there is still no compliance with the order of 20 February 2024. The only inference to be drawn is that Limpopo is not serious about litigating as it should.
8. At the last minute, Ms Malungani appeared for the respondent.
9. She was briefed only yesterday. The matter is not ready for hearing.
10. Ms Malungani undertook on behalf of her client that it would discover by 4pm on 27 February 2025.
ORDER
1. The matter is removed.
2. The second defendant is to pay the wasted costs on scale C.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD 17 February 2025
DELIVERED: 17 February 2025
APPEARANCES:
Applicants Adv Mark Smit
marksmit1900@gmail.com
082 330 1808
Instructed by Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr
011 562 1148 / 072 037 0082
Corne.Lewis@cdhlegal.com / Nishan.Pillay@cdhlegal.com
Respondent Adv T Malungani
Instructed by CHAYYA ATTORNEYS
015 295 9626
arshad@chayyaattorneys.co.za
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.