Bara and Another v Nedbank Limited (5345/2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 52 (13 June 2024)

Bara and Another v Nedbank Limited (5345/2022) [2024] ZAECMHC 52 (13 June 2024)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the requirements of rule 35(14) for discovery, as their founding affidavits did not specify the necessity or relevance of the requested documents for pleadings. The majority of their demands were successfully resisted by the respondent, and their minimal success did not entitle them to a costs order. The discretion regarding costs was exercised judicially, considering the nature of the proceedings, the effect of the costs order, the failure to make out a case for most demands, and the unnecessarily lengthy replying affidavit. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying leave to appeal on costs alone, and the application did not...

Citation
[2024] ZAECMHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Dr Marcus Bongani Bara; Applicant: Kostantinos Apostolou; Respondent: Nedbank Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2024
Case Number
5345/2022
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs on Scale 'A'.
Judges
V Kunju
Legal Topics
Costs Awards, Leave to Appeal, Rule 35 Discovery, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Costs Awards Leave to Appeal Rule 35 Discovery Judicial Discretion

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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Marcus Bongani Bara

Applicant

Kostantinos Apostolou

Applicant

Nedbank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether leave to appeal should be granted against a costs order issued in interlocutory proceedings.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants met the requirements of rule 35(14) of the Uniform Rules of Court for discovery of documents.
  3. 3 Whether exceptional circumstances exist to justify granting leave to appeal on costs alone.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the requirements of rule 35(14) for discovery, as their founding affidavits did not specify the necessity or relevance of the requested documents for pleadings. The majority of their demands were successfully resisted by the respondent, and their minimal success did not entitle them to a costs order. The discretion regarding costs was exercised judicially, considering the nature of the proceedings, the effect of the costs order, the failure to make out a case for most demands, and the unnecessarily lengthy replying affidavit. There were no exceptional circumstances justifying leave to appeal on costs alone, and the application did not...

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal are dismissed with costs on Scale 'A'.

Orders

  • The applications for leave to appeal under cases no 5345/2023 and 5858/2023 are dismissed with costs on Scale 'A'.