Mofokeng v Standard Bank of South Africa (12998/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 49 (1 February 2022)

Mofokeng v Standard Bank of South Africa (12998/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 49 (1 February 2022)

The Court found that the Applicant failed to make out a proper case for the Court to go behind the Respondent's discovery affidavits. The relief sought in the Notice of Motion was not supported by sufficient grounds in the founding affidavit, and the alternative relief sought in the replying affidavit was not properly before the Court. The Applicant did not amend his Notice of Motion or provide the Respondent with an opportunity to address the new relief. The Court held that the reference to 'Further and/or alternative relief' does not entitle an applicant to seek entirely different relief at the hearing. The Respondent had complied with its discovery obligations to the extent possible,...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 49
Parties
Applicant: Tshepiso Selby Mofokeng; Respondent: The Standard Bank of South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 February 2022
Case Number
12998/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Rule 30 a Application for Compliance With Rule 35(3) Discovery Notice
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs awarded against the Applicant.
Judges
G Nel
Legal Topics
Discovery Affidavit, Rule 30a Application, Rule 35 3 Notice, Striking Out Defence, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Discovery Affidavit Rule 30a Application Rule 35 3 Notice Striking Out Defence Costs Order

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tshepiso Selby Mofokeng

Applicant

The Standard Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Rule 30 a Application for Compliance With Rule 35(3) Discovery Notice

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Respondent failed to comply with the Applicant's Rule 35(3) Notice for discovery of documents and recordings.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant made out a case for the Court to go behind the Respondent's discovery affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether the Applicant is entitled to the relief sought in the Notice of Motion or alternative relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the Applicant failed to make out a proper case for the Court to go behind the Respondent's discovery affidavits. The relief sought in the Notice of Motion was not supported by sufficient grounds in the founding affidavit, and the alternative relief sought in the replying affidavit was not properly before the Court. The Applicant did not amend his Notice of Motion or provide the Respondent with an opportunity to address the new relief. The Court held that the reference to 'Further and/or alternative relief' does not entitle an applicant to seek entirely different relief at the hearing. The Respondent had complied with its discovery obligations to the extent possible,...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs awarded against the Applicant.

Orders

  • The Application is dismissed.
  • The Applicant is to pay the costs of the Application.