Mphatlane N.O and Others v Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (017896/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 February 2025)

Mphatlane N.O and Others v Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (017896/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 February 2025)

The court found that the Respondents failed to respond to the Applicants' rule 35(3) notice and subsequent demand, thereby depriving the Applicants of the opportunity to address issues of relevance or privilege prior to launching the rule 35(7) application. The documents sought were clearly described and, as determined from the pleadings, those falling within the period between 28 October 2019 and 21 July 2021 are relevant to the dispute regarding the alleged unlawful transfer of shares and removal of a director. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the Applicants, granting the application to compel discovery of documents relevant to the issues as defined by the pleadings.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 95
Parties
Applicant: Lenamile Isaac Mphatlane N.O; Applicant: Nompumelelo Thandeka Mophatlane N.O; Applicant: Mpumi Maranga Family Trust (IT002734/2026T); Respondent: Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Oceanside Tradind 644 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Christiaan Jozua Eskell Klaagsbrun; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 February 2025
Case Number
017896/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Rule 35(7) Application to Compel Discovery
Outcome
Application granted with costs on scale B; Respondents ordered to provide relevant documents within specified period.
Judges
E M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 Application, Share Transfer Dispute, Director Removal, Relevance of Evidence

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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lenamile Isaac Mphatlane N.O

Applicant

Nompumelelo Thandeka Mophatlane N.O

Applicant

Mpumi Maranga Family Trust (IT002734/2026T)

Applicant

Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Oceanside Tradind 644 (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Christiaan Jozua Eskell Klaagsbrun

Respondent

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Rule 35(7) Application to Compel Discovery

  1. 1 Whether the Respondents should be compelled to produce documents listed in the Applicants' rule 35(3) notice.
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute as determined by the pleadings.
  3. 3 Whether the Respondents' failure to respond to the rule 35(3) notice justifies the granting of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Respondents failed to respond to the Applicants' rule 35(3) notice and subsequent demand, thereby depriving the Applicants of the opportunity to address issues of relevance or privilege prior to launching the rule 35(7) application. The documents sought were clearly described and, as determined from the pleadings, those falling within the period between 28 October 2019 and 21 July 2021 are relevant to the dispute regarding the alleged unlawful transfer of shares and removal of a director. The court exercised its discretion in favour of the Applicants, granting the application to compel discovery of documents relevant to the issues as defined by the pleadings.

Court Disposition

Application granted with costs on scale B; Respondents ordered to provide relevant documents within specified period.

Orders

  • The application in terms of rule 35(7) is granted with costs on scale B.
  • The First to Fourth Respondents are ordered to provide the Applicants with the documentation listed in the Applicants’ rule 35(3) notice which falls within the period between 28 October 2019 and 21 July 2021.