Holdsworth and Others v Reunert Limited (16558/13) [2013] ZAGPPHC 540 (21 May 2013)

IN THE NORTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT, PRETORIA

(REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA)

In the matter between:

HOLDSWORTH,

JOHN CHARLES …...................................................................................First Applicant

ACTIVEX 295 (PTY) Ltd ….................................................................................................Second Applicant

CLINE,

RAEL IAN …..............................................................................................................Third Applicant

RANGILA,

MOHAMMED …................................................................................................Fourth Applicant

ONI,

OPEYEMI OLUWASEUN …..........................................................................................Fifth Applicant

JOHNSON,

BRIAN RICHARD …...........................................................................................Sixth Applicant

FRANCESCO,

DARRYN …................................................................................................Seventh Applicant

CHENGALROYEN,

JARRYD JERMAINE …...................................................................Eighth Applicant

MOODLEY,

THIRESH ….......................................................................................................Ninth Applicant

FRANCESCO,

DONAVAN GILYAN …................................................................................Tenth Applicant

NEIMAN,

VICTOR …........................................................................................................Eleventh Applicant

JOVANOVIC,

DAMJAN ….................................................................................................Twelfth Applicant

GROBLER,

LOUIS …......................................................................................................Thirteenth Applicant

OPEN NETWORK SOLUTIONS (PTY) LIMITED …................................................Fourteenth Applicant

and

REUNERT

LIMITED ….................................................................................................................Respondent

JUDGMENT

MOTHLE J

Introduction

1. This application raises the question whether a proved claim as referred to in Section 44 of the Insolvency Act, 24 of 1936 (“the Insolvency Act”) constitutes “a document” as stated in Rule 35(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court and is therefore subject to disclosure. A request for disclosure made in terms of Rule 35(12) must be for a document (or tape recording) which is referred to in a pleading or affidavit.

Background

2. The Applicants, as Respondents in an application pending in this Court (“the pending application”) lodged this interlocutory application in terms of Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court in the Motion Court for urgent applications. The relief sought in this urgent application is for the Court to order the Respondent to produce certain documents, in terms of Rule 35(12). This application was brought on urgency as the pending application was due to be heard.

3. The pending application has since been postponed sine die to make way for this application. However the Applicants still have to file their answering affidavits. They contend that in order to do so, they require the following documents, which the Respondent has referred to in its founding affidavit in the pending application

namely;

3.1 The Respondent’s proved claim in the winding-up proceedings of Black Sheep Development (Pty) Ltd, held in terms of section 44 of the Insolvency Act;