Cityguidesa (Pty) Ltd v Kebraware (Pty) Ltd (30944 / 08) [2012] ZAGPJHC 8 (11 February 2012)

Cityguidesa (Pty) Ltd v Kebraware (Pty) Ltd (30944 / 08) [2012] ZAGPJHC 8 (11 February 2012)

The court held that the test for discovery under Rule 35(3) is broad and generous, extending beyond the narrow concept of relevance advanced by the respondent. Documents are discoverable if they may reasonably contain information that could advance the applicant's case or damage the respondent's case, or lead to a train of enquiry with such consequences. The court found that the documents requested by the applicant, including agreements with contractors, employment contracts, invoices, photographs, and other listed items, are relevant to determining whether the hotel was completed and operational as required by the parties' agreement. The respondent's denial of the applicant's allegations...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPJHC 8
Parties
Applicant: Cityguidesa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Kebraware (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2012
Case Number
30944 / 08
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(3)
Outcome
Application granted. The respondent is ordered to make the requested documents available for inspection and to pay the costs of the application.
Judges
NF Kgomo
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 Uniform Rules, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 Uniform Rules Relevance of Evidence

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cityguidesa (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Kebraware (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the documents requested by the applicant under Rule 35(3) are discoverable.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's refusal to discover on grounds of irrelevance is justified.
  3. 3 What is the applicable legal test for discovery of documents in interlocutory proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the test for discovery under Rule 35(3) is broad and generous, extending beyond the narrow concept of relevance advanced by the respondent. Documents are discoverable if they may reasonably contain information that could advance the applicant's case or damage the respondent's case, or lead to a train of enquiry with such consequences. The court found that the documents requested by the applicant, including agreements with contractors, employment contracts, invoices, photographs, and other listed items, are relevant to determining whether the hotel was completed and operational as required by the parties' agreement. The respondent's denial of the applicant's allegations...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondent is ordered to make the requested documents available for inspection and to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • Defendant is ordered and directed to make available for plaintiff’s inspection the documents listed in paragraph 2 to 17 (inclusive) by 8 February 2012 and to allow Plaintiff to make copies thereof; or, in the event that such documents (or portion thereof) are not in its possession, Defendant shall state on oath by...
  • Failing compliance with the above, leave is granted to the Plaintiff to apply on the same papers, duly supplemented where necessary, for the dismissal of Defendant’s plea and defence and counterclaim and for judgment to be entered against Defendant in favour of Plaintiff with costs.