Maviyo v Velocity Finance (RF) Limited (4424/2023) [2025] ZAECMKHC 52 (19 June 2025)

Maviyo v Velocity Finance (RF) Limited (4424/2023) [2025] ZAECMKHC 52 (19 June 2025)

The court found that the respondent's references in its answering affidavit were not sufficiently wide or relevant to justify the production of the original documents requested by the applicant under rules 35(12) and 35(14). The applicant failed to demonstrate the relevance of the original transaction schedule, the Altech Netstar certificate, or the electronically signed instalment sale agreement to the main application. The court held that the order dismissing the application to compel was interlocutory and did not dispose of any issue in the main application, nor did it preclude any relief that might be sought. Accordingly, the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of...

Citation
[2025] ZAECMKHC 52
Parties
Applicant: Mthulisi Maviyo; Respondent: Velocity Finance (RF) Limited
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 June 2025
Case Number
4424/2023
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Application to Compel Production of Documents
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
JGA Laing
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Leave to Appeal, Interlocutory Orders, Rule 35 Production, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Leave to Appeal Interlocutory Orders Rule 35 Production Costs Award

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mthulisi Maviyo

Applicant

Velocity Finance (RF) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Dismissal of Application to Compel Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's references in its answering affidavit justified the production of the original documents requested under rules 35(12) and 35(14).
  2. 2 Whether the references to the transaction schedule, Altech Netstar service, and electronically signed instalment sale agreement were sufficiently wide and relevant to require production.
  3. 3 Whether the order dismissing the application to compel was appealable as a final order under South African law.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's references in its answering affidavit were not sufficiently wide or relevant to justify the production of the original documents requested by the applicant under rules 35(12) and 35(14). The applicant failed to demonstrate the relevance of the original transaction schedule, the Altech Netstar certificate, or the electronically signed instalment sale agreement to the main application. The court held that the order dismissing the application to compel was interlocutory and did not dispose of any issue in the main application, nor did it preclude any relief that might be sought. Accordingly, the requirements for leave to appeal under section 17(1)(a) of...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.