Matlala v Mmela Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others (25524/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1149 (12 October 2023)
The court found that the plaintiff's request for targeted discovery was justified by her need to prove damages, specifically payments from the Department of Justice and dividends paid to the defendants. However, to balance the defendants' privacy rights, the court ordered that only information relating to payments...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 1149
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Mary-Anne Phuti Matlala; Defendant: Mmela Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Claims Administration and Recovery Services (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Wilson Mohobi Ramatsetse
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 25524/2019
- Procedural Posture
- Interlocutory Application / Rule 35(13) Targeted Discovery Application
- Outcome
- Application granted in part; targeted discovery ordered with privacy safeguards.
- Judges
- G Malindi
- Legal Topics
- Targeted Discovery, Bank Statement Disclosure, Share Dividend Declaration, Privacy Redaction
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Mary-Anne Phuti Matlala
Plaintiff
Mmela Investments Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Claims Administration and Recovery Services (Pty) Ltd
Defendant
Wilson Mohobi Ramatsetse
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Rule 35(13) Targeted Discovery Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to targeted discovery of the defendants' bank statements from 2008 to date.
- 2 Whether the defendants must disclose all dividends declared from 2008 to date.
- 3 Whether the defendants' privacy rights require redaction of irrelevant information in the bank statements.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the plaintiff's request for targeted discovery was justified by her need to prove damages, specifically payments from the Department of Justice and dividends paid to the defendants. However, to balance the defendants' privacy rights, the court ordered that only information relating to payments by the Department of Justice be disclosed, with all other information in the bank statements to be redacted. The defendants are also required to disclose all dividends declared during the relevant period and to confirm by affidavit that no redacted information is relevant to the discovery sought.
Court Disposition
Application granted in part; targeted discovery ordered with privacy safeguards.
Orders
- The first and second defendants must disclose their bank statements from 2008 to date, redacted to exclude all information except payments by the Department of Justice.
- The first and second defendants must disclose all dividends declared by them from 2008 to date in any form.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
30 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
Case No: 25524/2019
NOT REPORTABLE
NOT OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
12.10.23
In the interlocutory application of:
MATLALA, MARY-ANNE PHUTI Plaintiff And MMELA INVESTMENTS HOLDINGS (PTY) LTD First Defendant CLAIMS ADMINISTRATION AND RECOVERY SERVICES (PTY) LTD Second Defendant RAMATSETSE, WILSON MOHOBI Third Defendant
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The date for hand-down is deemed to be 12 October 2023.
JUDGMENT – RULE 35(13) CHAMBER APPLICATION
MALINDI J
[1] On 17 February 2023 the plaintiff made a request for targeted discovery in terms of paragraphs 25 and 26 of the Commercial Court Practice Directive. She requests the discovery of the first and second defendants’ bank statements held with any and all banking institutions from 2008 to date.
[2] The plaintiff requests further that the defendants disclose whether any shares have been declared by the first and second defendants.
[3] The defendants oppose the request on the grounds that discovery has been made and that in any event the documents are irrelevant.
[4] I have considered the pleadings in this matter and am of the view that the purpose for which targeted discovery is sought is justified. In order to prove her damages as pleaded, the plaintiff requires proof that the Department of Justice made certain payments to the defendants and that dividends, which she claims she was entitled to, were paid to the first and second defendants. However, in order to protect the rights of the defendants to privacy, I order that discovery as requested be made but that the statements be redacted for that purpose. The effect would be the redaction of all other information in the bank statements except payments made by the Department of Justice to the first and second defendants from 2008 to date.
[5] Accordingly, the following order is made:
1. The first and second defendants are ordered to disclose their bank statements held in any and all banking institutions from 2008 to date. Such bank statements are to be redacted so as to exclude all information not being payments by the Department of Justice to them.
2. The first and second defendants are to disclose in any form all dividends declared by the them during the period from 2008 to date.
3. The defendants are to declare on affidavit that none of the redacted information is relevant for the purposes of paragraphs 1 and 2 above.
G MALINDI
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION
JOHANNESBURG
PARTIES LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES (APPLICATION DECIDED IN CHAMBERS, ON ITS PAPERS)
FOR THE PLAINTIFFS:
Prince Mudau and Associates
FOR THE DEFENDANTS:
Van Der Merwe Doring Maponya Inc (VDMA)
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 12 October 2023