Deltamune (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tiger Brands Limited and Others (847/2020) [2022] ZASCA 15; [2022] 2 All SA 26 (SCA); 2022 (3) SA 339 (SCA) (4 February 2022)

Deltamune (Pty) Ltd and Others v Tiger Brands Limited and Others (847/2020) [2022] ZASCA 15; [2022] 2 All SA 26 (SCA); 2022 (3) SA 339 (SCA) (4 February 2022)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the subpoenas issued by Tiger Brands against third parties were not relevant to the issues in the underlying class action, as the certification order limited the scope of liability to harm caused by the consumption of contaminated food products originating from or passing through Tiger Brands' Polokwane facility. The court found that Tiger Brands' argument regarding the need to establish whether it was the sole source of the outbreak was speculative and not material to the pleaded case. The subpoenas were overly broad, lacked specificity, and sought documents unrelated to the facta probanda necessary to sustain the class action. The court emphasised...

Citation
[2022] ZASCA 15
Parties
Appellant: Deltamune (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Red Meat Industry Forum; Appellant: Association of Meat Importers & Exporters; Appellant: Federated Meats (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Curly Wee Boerdery (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Ibis Piggery (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Koo Koo Roo Chickens CC t/a Marios Meat; Appellant: Molare Investments (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: New Style Pork (Pty) Ltd t/a Lynca Meats; Appellant: Winelands Pork (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Famous Brands Management Company (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: National Health Laboratory Service; Appellant: Jasomay Pillay; Appellant: Aspirata Auditing Testing & Certification (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tiger Brands Limited; Respondent: Enterprise Foods (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Tiger Consumer Brands Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 February 2022
Case Number
847/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeals upheld; subpoenas set aside except for limited categories of documents relevant to negligence; costs awarded to appellants including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Zondi, Makgoka, Mokgohloa, Gorven, Meyer
Legal Topics
Subpoena Duces Tecum, Relevance of Evidence, Class Action Procedure, Strict Liability Consumer Protection, Negligence, Specificity of Subpoena
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Delict Subpoena Duces Tecum Relevance of Evidence Class Action Procedure Strict Liability Consumer Protection Negligence +1 more

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 6 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Deltamune (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Red Meat Industry Forum

Appellant

Association of Meat Importers & Exporters

Appellant

Federated Meats (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Curly Wee Boerdery (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Ibis Piggery (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Koo Koo Roo Chickens CC t/a Marios Meat

Appellant

Molare Investments (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

New Style Pork (Pty) Ltd t/a Lynca Meats

Appellant

Winelands Pork (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Famous Brands Management Company (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

National Health Laboratory Service

Appellant

Jasomay Pillay

Appellant

Aspirata Auditing Testing & Certification (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Tiger Brands Limited

Respondent

Enterprise Foods (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Tiger Consumer Brands Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the subpoenas duces tecum issued against third parties are relevant to the underlying class action.
  2. 2 Whether the ambit of the subpoenas is too wide and lacks specificity.
  3. 3 Whether the subpoenas constitute an abuse of process or a fishing expedition.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the subpoenas issued by Tiger Brands against third parties were not relevant to the issues in the underlying class action, as the certification order limited the scope of liability to harm caused by the consumption of contaminated food products originating from or passing through Tiger Brands' Polokwane facility. The court found that Tiger Brands' argument regarding the need to establish whether it was the sole source of the outbreak was speculative and not material to the pleaded case. The subpoenas were overly broad, lacked specificity, and sought documents unrelated to the facta probanda necessary to sustain the class action. The court emphasised...

Court Disposition

Appeals upheld; subpoenas set aside except for limited categories of documents relevant to negligence; costs awarded to appellants including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with orders dismissing the applications to compel and setting aside the subpoenas, except for specified documents relating to industry safety protocols.