Bruwer v Stols (5571/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 120 (4 August 2011)

Bruwer v Stols (5571/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 120 (4 August 2011)

The court found that the applicant's request under Rule 35(14) was specific and legitimate, as the documents sought were referenced in the respondent's counterclaim and their existence was not disputed. The respondent's objections regarding cost and time were not valid, as the applicant only sought inspection and would bear the cost of copying. Access to the documents was necessary for the applicant to plead properly to the counterclaim, which involved substantial sums and detailed expenditure. The respondent's argument that the applicant did not require the documents for pleading was rejected, as it would force the applicant into a bare denial, which is not acceptable. Accordingly, the...

Citation
[2011] ZAFSHC 120
Parties
Applicant: Aletta Johanna Bruwer; Respondent: Lodewyk Stephanus Jacobus Stols
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 August 2011
Case Number
5571/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Reasons for Order Following Rule 49(1)(c) Request
Outcome
Application granted; respondent compelled to comply with Rule 35(14) and costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
H.M. Musi
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 14, Pleading Requirements, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 14 Pleading Requirements Costs Award

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 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Aletta Johanna Bruwer

Applicant

Lodewyk Stephanus Jacobus Stols

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Reasons for Order Following Rule 49(1)(c) Request

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant's request under Rule 35(14) was valid and specific.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was obliged to make the requested documents available for inspection.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant should bear the costs of sorting and copying the documents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's request under Rule 35(14) was specific and legitimate, as the documents sought were referenced in the respondent's counterclaim and their existence was not disputed. The respondent's objections regarding cost and time were not valid, as the applicant only sought inspection and would bear the cost of copying. Access to the documents was necessary for the applicant to plead properly to the counterclaim, which involved substantial sums and detailed expenditure. The respondent's argument that the applicant did not require the documents for pleading was rejected, as it would force the applicant into a bare denial, which is not acceptable. Accordingly, the...

Court Disposition

Application granted; respondent compelled to comply with Rule 35(14) and costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is compelled to make the specified documents available for inspection by the applicant within five days from the date of the order.
  • The applicant is entitled to make copies of the documents at her own expense.