Ndala v Baloyi and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 203; 5834/2022 (9 March 2023)

Ndala v Baloyi and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 203; 5834/2022 (9 March 2023)

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for compelling further discovery under Rule 35(7). The second respondent had complied with the Rule 35(1) and Rule 35(3) notices by filing discovery affidavits and raising valid defences of relevance and non-existence of the requested documents. The applicant did not provide evidence of the existence of the documents sought, nor did she demonstrate falsehood in the respondent's affidavits. The application was further flawed by the inclusion of requests for documents not specified in the original Rule 35(3) notice. The court emphasized that Rule 35(7) is not intended to facilitate further and better discovery where Rule 35(3) has...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 203
Parties
Applicant: Noluthando Dorah Ndala; Respondent: Aaron Baloyi; Respondent: Bolt Services ZA (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 March 2023
Case Number
5834/2022
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(7)
Outcome
Application to compel dismissed with costs, including costs of Counsel.
Judges
Mncube
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Rule 35 Uniform Rules, Vicarious Liability, Legal Professional Privilege
Civil Procedure Discovery Procedure Rule 35 Uniform Rules Vicarious Liability Legal Professional Privilege

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 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Noluthando Dorah Ndala

Applicant

Aaron Baloyi

Respondent

Bolt Services ZA (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(7)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has made out a case to compel the second respondent to discover documents listed in the Rule 35(3) Notice.
  2. 2 Whether the application is fatally flawed by the failure of the applicant to properly utilize Rule 35(3) of the Uniform Rules.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to make out a case for compelling further discovery under Rule 35(7). The second respondent had complied with the Rule 35(1) and Rule 35(3) notices by filing discovery affidavits and raising valid defences of relevance and non-existence of the requested documents. The applicant did not provide evidence of the existence of the documents sought, nor did she demonstrate falsehood in the respondent's affidavits. The application was further flawed by the inclusion of requests for documents not specified in the original Rule 35(3) notice. The court emphasized that Rule 35(7) is not intended to facilitate further and better discovery where Rule 35(3) has...

Court Disposition

Application to compel dismissed with costs, including costs of Counsel.

Orders

  • The application to compel is dismissed with costs including costs of Counsel.