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.
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
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the Respondents should be compelled to produce documents listed in the Applicants' rule 35(3) notice.
- 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute as determined by the pleadings.
- 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.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment