Brown v Member of the Executive Council for the Education and Sport Development, North West Province (96/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 4 (19 January 2023)

Brown v Member of the Executive Council for the Education and Sport Development, North West Province (96/2021) [2023] ZANWHC 4 (19 January 2023)

The court found that the defendant's Rule 35(12) notices were irregular steps because the requested documents, except for the third-party liability insurance policy, were not referred to in the pleadings of the Third parties as required by Rule 35(12). The defendant failed to comply with Form 15 of the First Schedule by not indicating in which pleading the documents were referenced. The correct procedure for obtaining documents relevant to anticipated issues for purposes of pleading is Rule 35(14), not Rule 35(12). The insurance policy was properly referenced and produced, but the remaining documents were not. Therefore, the defendant's notices were set aside except to the extent that...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 4
Parties
Applicant: Jacobus Brown; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Education & Sport Development, North West Province
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 January 2023
Case Number
96/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Rule 35(12) Notices as Irregular Steps
Outcome
Defendant's Rule 35(12) notices set aside as irregular steps except as they relate to the insurance policy and associated documents. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
K Mongale
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 Procedure, Irregular Step, Pleadings, Third Party Proceedings
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 Procedure Irregular Step Pleadings Third Party Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacobus Brown

Applicant

Member of the Executive Council for Education & Sport Development, North West Province

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Rule 35(12) Notices as Irregular Steps

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's Rule 35(12) notices constitute irregular steps under the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the documents requested by the defendant are referred to in the pleadings of the Third parties as required by Rule 35(12).
  3. 3 Whether the correct procedural rule was employed by the defendant for the requested documents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's Rule 35(12) notices were irregular steps because the requested documents, except for the third-party liability insurance policy, were not referred to in the pleadings of the Third parties as required by Rule 35(12). The defendant failed to comply with Form 15 of the First Schedule by not indicating in which pleading the documents were referenced. The correct procedure for obtaining documents relevant to anticipated issues for purposes of pleading is Rule 35(14), not Rule 35(12). The insurance policy was properly referenced and produced, but the remaining documents were not. Therefore, the defendant's notices were set aside except to the extent that...

Court Disposition

Defendant's Rule 35(12) notices set aside as irregular steps except as they relate to the insurance policy and associated documents. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • Defendant's notices in terms of Rule 35(12) are set aside as irregular steps except as they relate to the third-party liability insurance policy and a copy or transcript of the call centre conversation at the time the application was made or policy application forms.
  • Each party to pay its own costs.