Nedbank Limited v Jordaan N.O (16335/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 867 (6 November 2014)

Nedbank Limited v Jordaan N.O (16335/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 867 (6 November 2014)

The court held that Rule 35(12) only entitles a party to compel production of documents specifically referred to in an affidavit, not documents merely annexed. The applicant had already been provided with the document 'JP4', which was referred to in the respondent's affidavit and annexed thereto. The applicant's submission that Rule 35(12) extends to annexures was rejected. The court found that the applicant was not entitled to further production of documents under Rule 35(12) as the relevant document was already in its possession. Accordingly, the application to compel was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 867
Parties
Applicant: Nedbank Limited; Respondent: Jean-Pierre Jordaan N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 November 2014
Case Number
16335/2014
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Compel Production of Documents
Outcome
Application to compel production of documents in terms of Rule 35(12) dismissed with costs.
Judges
A.M.L. Phatudi
Legal Topics
Rule 35 Discovery, Production of Documents, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Rule 35 Discovery Production of Documents 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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nedbank Limited

Applicant

Jean-Pierre Jordaan N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Compel Production of Documents

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether Rule 35(12) entitles the applicant to compel production of documents referred to in an annexure to the respondent's affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has already been provided with the document referred to in the affidavit.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded to the successful party.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that Rule 35(12) only entitles a party to compel production of documents specifically referred to in an affidavit, not documents merely annexed. The applicant had already been provided with the document 'JP4', which was referred to in the respondent's affidavit and annexed thereto. The applicant's submission that Rule 35(12) extends to annexures was rejected. The court found that the applicant was not entitled to further production of documents under Rule 35(12) as the relevant document was already in its possession. Accordingly, the application to compel was dismissed, and costs were awarded to the respondent.

Court Disposition

Application to compel production of documents in terms of Rule 35(12) dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application to compel the respondent in terms of Rule 35(12) is dismissed with costs.