Dovetail Prpoerties (Pty) Limited v Sibanye Stillwater Limited (00127/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 110 (12 February 2024)
The court held that the Commercial Court Practice Directive unequivocally prohibits requests for further particulars in Commercial Court proceedings. The applicant's reliance on general principles of fairness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness does not override the explicit prohibition. The applicant failed to...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 110
- Parties
- Applicant: Dovetail Prpoerties (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Sibanye Stillwater Limited
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 00127/2021
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Request for Further Particulars in Commercial Court Proceedings
- Outcome
- The request for further particulars is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
- Judges
- Wepener
- Legal Topics
- Commercial Court Practice Directive, Request for Further Particulars, Rule 21 Prohibition
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dovetail Prpoerties (Pty) Limited
Applicant
Sibanye Stillwater Limited
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Request for Further Particulars in Commercial Court Proceedings
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether a request for further particulars is permissible in Commercial Court proceedings under the Commercial Court Practice Directive.
- 2 Whether the applicant has demonstrated exceptional circumstances to justify the request for further particulars.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the Commercial Court Practice Directive unequivocally prohibits requests for further particulars in Commercial Court proceedings. The applicant's reliance on general principles of fairness, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness does not override the explicit prohibition. The applicant failed to demonstrate any exceptional circumstances that would justify relaxing the rule. The fact that the applicant had already filed an extensive plea and raised exceptions further undermined the need for further particulars. The court concluded that the request for further particulars must be dismissed.
Court Disposition
The request for further particulars is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
Orders
- The request for further particulars is dismissed.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of this application, including the costs of two counsel where two counsel were employed.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
33 paragraphs
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case Number: 00127/2021
(1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO _________________________ DATE
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
DOVETAIL PRPOERTIES (PTY) LIMITED
Applicant
and
SIBANYE STILLWATER LIMITED
Respondent
JUDGMENT
This judgment has been delivered by being uploaded to the CaseLines profile on and communicated to the parties by email.
Wepener, J
[1] This is a Commercial Court matter which is being conducted in term of the Commercial Court Practice Directive of this Division. In terms of Chapter 4 paragraph 22 “No request for further particulars may be sought in the Commercial Court.”
[2] Despite this provision, the applicant (defendant) has served and filed a request for particulars. Its heading indicates that the request is in terms of Rule 21 read together with Chapter 4 paragraph 18. In my view, the prohibition contained in the Commercial Court Practice Directives negate a request for further particulars in terms of Rule 21, which is ousted for the purposes of Commercial Court matters.
[3] The applicant further relies on the fact that Chapter 4 paragraph 18 provides that “matters heard in the Commercial Court will be dealt with in line with the broad principles of fairness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness.”
[4] This direction does not override the clear wording that “no request for further particulars may be sought . . .” (sic) served “in the Commercial Court. . . .”
[5] Unlike Chapter 5, in Rules 25 and 26, which also abolishes discovery but does open the door for some discovery, the rule against further particulars does not leave the door open. I do not need to consider whether exceptional circumstances would permit the request for further particulars as in this matter none such exceptional circumstances have been shown.
[6] Some exceptional ground or reason may have to be shown in order to go beyond the prohibition, if it is to be relaxed, but the applicant has not shown such exceptional circumstances. I note that the applicant has filed an extensive plea to issues raised in the particulars of claim and it had the opportunity to raise two exceptions on two different occasions.
[7] I am of the view that the result is that the extensive plea to the particulars of claim speaks against the need for further particulars.
[8] This matter was referred to the Commercial Court after pleadings had closed and the usual Commercial Court rules up to the close of pleadings did not apply, but, in my view, the witness statements which are to be exchanged and which ordinarily constitute the evidence in chief, will address any uncertainty which the applicant may have.
[9] In the circumstances the following order is made:
The request for further particulars is dismissed with costs which include the costs of two counsel where two counsel were employed.
______________________________
Wepener J
Heard: 12 February 2024
Delivered: 12 February 2024
For the Applicant: Adv N. Luthuli
Instructed by ENSAfrica
For the Respondent: Adv P. Sais SC.
Instructed by Weavind & Weavind Incorporated