Coetzer v Vermaak & Dennis and Others (1099/2012) [2018] ZAFSHC 119 (21 June 2018)

Coetzer v Vermaak & Dennis and Others (1099/2012) [2018] ZAFSHC 119 (21 June 2018)

The court found that the Respondent was not in possession or control of the requested documents at the time the application was launched, as the documents were held by the Second Plaintiff's attorney, who was not cooperating. Rule 35(14) applies to parties in possession or control of relevant documents, and the Applicant knew the Respondent did not have the documents. Therefore, the application should have been brought against the Second Plaintiff. The court also held that the Applicant's attorney was duly authorised to bring the application, as there was no evidence to the contrary and no proper challenge to his authority. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs, as there...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 119
Parties
Plaintiff: Rudolf Antonie Coetzer; Defendant: Vermaak & Dennis; Defendant: Leon Vermaak; Defendant: Jaco Els; Applicant: Minette du Preez
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Case Number
1099/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(14)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
W J Edeling
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Uniform Rule 35 14, Locus Standi, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Discovery Procedure Uniform Rule 35 14 Locus Standi Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rudolf Antonie Coetzer

Plaintiff

Vermaak & Dennis

Defendant

Leon Vermaak

Defendant

Jaco Els

Defendant

Minette du Preez

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was the Respondent obliged to deliver the documents as set out in the Notice in terms of Rule 35(14)?
  2. 2 Was the Applicant justified in bringing the application against the Respondent and incurring costs?
  3. 3 Did the Applicant have the necessary locus standi to bring the application?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondent was not in possession or control of the requested documents at the time the application was launched, as the documents were held by the Second Plaintiff's attorney, who was not cooperating. Rule 35(14) applies to parties in possession or control of relevant documents, and the Applicant knew the Respondent did not have the documents. Therefore, the application should have been brought against the Second Plaintiff. The court also held that the Applicant's attorney was duly authorised to bring the application, as there was no evidence to the contrary and no proper challenge to his authority. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs, as there...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.