Endress and Hauser (Pty) Ltd v Zamangwane (Pty) Ltd t/a ZMG-Watech (236/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 6 (23 January 2024)

Endress and Hauser (Pty) Ltd v Zamangwane (Pty) Ltd t/a ZMG-Watech (236/2021) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 6 (23 January 2024)

The respondent is bound by its reply to the Rule 35(3) notice and the undertakings made during the pre-trial conference to provide documents 1 and 2 for inspection and copying. No special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify resiling from these agreements. The respondent's claim of privilege over document 3 was not substantiated under oath and no basis for privilege was established in the opposing affidavit or arguments. Document 3, whether bank statements or accounting records, may be relevant to matters in question as pleaded and must be made available for inspection and copying. The applicant is entitled to attorney and client costs due to the respondent's conduct, which...

Citation
[2024] ZAMPMBHC 6
Parties
Applicant: Endress and Hauser (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Zamangwane (Pty) Ltd t/a ZMG-Watech
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 January 2024
Case Number
236/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(3)
Outcome
Application to compel discovery granted in favour of the applicant.
Judges
Greyling-Coetzer
Legal Topics
Discovery, Professional Privilege, Pre Trial Agreement, Uniform Rule 35, Attorney Client Costs
Civil Procedure Discovery Professional Privilege Pre Trial Agreement Uniform Rule 35 Attorney Client Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Endress and Hauser (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Zamangwane (Pty) Ltd t/a ZMG-Watech

Respondent

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is bound by its undertakings and pre-trial agreements to provide documents 1 and 2 for inspection and copying.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's claim of privilege over document 3 is substantiated and compliant with Rule 35(3).
  3. 3 Whether document 3 may be relevant to any matter in question and should be made available for inspection and copying.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent is bound by its reply to the Rule 35(3) notice and the undertakings made during the pre-trial conference to provide documents 1 and 2 for inspection and copying. No special circumstances have been demonstrated to justify resiling from these agreements. The respondent's claim of privilege over document 3 was not substantiated under oath and no basis for privilege was established in the opposing affidavit or arguments. Document 3, whether bank statements or accounting records, may be relevant to matters in question as pleaded and must be made available for inspection and copying. The applicant is entitled to attorney and client costs due to the respondent's conduct, which...

Court Disposition

Application to compel discovery granted in favour of the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to make available for inspection and allow the applicant to make copies of documents 1, 2, and 3 as described in the Rule 35(3) notice within 10 days from the date of judgment.
  • Should the respondent fail to comply, the applicant may apply on the same papers, duly supplemented, for an order striking out the respondent's defence and dismissing its counterclaim.