Doola v Firtsrand Bank Ltd trading inter alia as RNB Private Bank and as FNB (2020/13723) [2022] ZAGPJHC 837 (27 October 2022)

Doola v Firtsrand Bank Ltd trading inter alia as RNB Private Bank and as FNB (2020/13723) [2022] ZAGPJHC 837 (27 October 2022)

The court held that Rule 35(12) requires discovery only of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits that are relevant to the dispute, not privileged, and in the possession of the party. The applicant's broad demand for documents, including those not referred to or irrelevant, was not supported by the rule. The application to strike out portions of the respondent's affidavit was dismissed as the paragraphs were relevant and no prejudice was alleged or shown. The applicant's conduct in persisting with inappropriate discovery requests and disputing the authority of the deponent without basis was found to be vexatious and in bad faith, justifying a punitive costs order on the attorney...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 837
Parties
Applicant: Doola, Riyadh; Respondent: First Rand Bank Ltd trading inter alia as RMB Private Bank and as FNB
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Case Number
2020/13723
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Discovery Under Rule 35(12); Application to Strike Out Portions of Affidavit
Outcome
Application for discovery under Rule 35(12) dismissed; application to strike out dismissed; punitive costs order granted against applicant.
Judges
Moorcroft
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 12, Striking Out Irrelevant Matter, Costs Punitive Scale
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 12 Striking Out Irrelevant Matter Costs Punitive Scale

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 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doola, Riyadh

Applicant

First Rand Bank Ltd trading inter alia as RMB Private Bank and as FNB

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application for Discovery Under Rule 35(12); Application to Strike Out Portions of Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to discovery of documents referred to in the respondent's affidavits under Rule 35(12).
  2. 2 Whether the application to strike out portions of the respondent's affidavit should be granted on grounds of irrelevance.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order on attorney and client scale is justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 35(12) requires discovery only of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits that are relevant to the dispute, not privileged, and in the possession of the party. The applicant's broad demand for documents, including those not referred to or irrelevant, was not supported by the rule. The application to strike out portions of the respondent's affidavit was dismissed as the paragraphs were relevant and no prejudice was alleged or shown. The applicant's conduct in persisting with inappropriate discovery requests and disputing the authority of the deponent without basis was found to be vexatious and in bad faith, justifying a punitive costs order on the attorney...

Court Disposition

Application for discovery under Rule 35(12) dismissed; application to strike out dismissed; punitive costs order granted against applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant’s application to strike out paragraphs of the respondent’s answering affidavit is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the striking out application on the attorney and client scale.