Jonker v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (2683/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 196 (19 June 2024)

Jonker v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (2683/2020) [2024] ZAFSHC 196 (19 June 2024)

The court found that the applicants' rule 35(3) notices and applications were irregular and not in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court. The relief sought was not aligned with the provisions of rule 35(7), and the applicants embarked on a fishing expedition rather than a legitimate request for further discovery. The Landbank had already discovered all relevant documents and addressed the applicants' requests in its answering affidavits. The court distinguished the present facts from the Trakman judgment, noting that the validity of the underlying agreements and the sufficiency of discovery would be matters for the trial court. The applications were dismissed, but the court...

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 196
Parties
Applicant: Louis Jonker; Respondent: The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa; Applicant: Louis Jonker N.O.; Applicant: Johanna Jacoba Jonker N.O.; Applicant: Annette Liebenberg N.O.
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2024
Case Number
2683/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3)
Outcome
Applications dismissed. Costs apportioned between the parties according to the timing of affidavits.
Judges
JP Daffue
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Rule 35 Application, Costs Award, Fishing Expedition, Pleadings Irregularity
Civil Procedure Discovery Procedure Rule 35 Application Costs Award Fishing Expedition Pleadings Irregularity

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Louis Jonker

Applicant

The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Louis Jonker N.O.

Applicant

Johanna Jacoba Jonker N.O.

Applicant

Annette Liebenberg N.O.

Applicant

Procedural Posture

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

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be compelled to comply with the rule 35(3) notice and make available additional documents requested by the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' rule 35(3) notices and applications are procedurally compliant and substantively justified.
  3. 3 How costs should be apportioned given the conduct of both parties regarding discovery and opposition.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants' rule 35(3) notices and applications were irregular and not in accordance with the Uniform Rules of Court. The relief sought was not aligned with the provisions of rule 35(7), and the applicants embarked on a fishing expedition rather than a legitimate request for further discovery. The Landbank had already discovered all relevant documents and addressed the applicants' requests in its answering affidavits. The court distinguished the present facts from the Trakman judgment, noting that the validity of the underlying agreements and the sufficiency of discovery would be matters for the trial court. The applications were dismissed, but the court...

Court Disposition

Applications dismissed. Costs apportioned between the parties according to the timing of affidavits.

Orders

  • In application 2683/2020: The application is dismissed.
  • The Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa shall pay the applicant's costs until 23 April 2024, being the date the answering affidavit was served.