Pangbourne Properties (Pty) Ltd v van der Merwe du Toit and Others (29968/08) [2012] ZAGPJHC 253 (17 October 2012)
The court found that the High Court Rules clearly entitle any party in litigation, including the first defendant as applicant, to request further particulars, discovery of documents, and admissions, irrespective of whether there is a lis between the parties. The court endorsed the interpretation of these rules as...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2012] ZAGPJHC 253
- Parties
- Plaintiff: Pangbourne Properties (Pty) Limited; Defendant: van der Merwe du Toit & Others
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 29968/08
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Procedure Application / Interlocutory Application
- Outcome
- Application granted in favour of the applicant.
- Judges
- Willis
- Legal Topics
- Request for Further Particulars, Discovery of Documents, Request for Admissions, Costs of Two Counsel
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Pangbourne Properties (Pty) Limited
Plaintiff
van der Merwe du Toit & Others
Defendant
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure Application / Interlocutory Application
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the first defendant is entitled to request further particulars for trial under Rule 21(2).
- 2 Whether the first defendant is entitled to discovery of further documents under Rule 35(3).
- 3 Whether the first defendant is entitled to request admissions and enquiries under Rule 37(4).
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the High Court Rules clearly entitle any party in litigation, including the first defendant as applicant, to request further particulars, discovery of documents, and admissions, irrespective of whether there is a lis between the parties. The court endorsed the interpretation of these rules as set out in Control Instruments Finance (Pty) Ltd v Mercantile Ltd. Furthermore, given the complexity and substantial value of the claim, the court held that it was reasonable to allow the costs of two counsel for the applicant.
Court Disposition
Application granted in favour of the applicant.
Orders
- The applicant is granted an order in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3, and 4 of the notice of motion dated 26 September 2012.
- The costs of the application are awarded in favour of the applicant, including the costs of two counsel.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
14 paragraphs
IN THE SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 29968/08
DATE: 2012-10-17
In the matter between
PANGBOURNE PROPERTIES (PTY) LIMITED.................................Plaintiff
and
VAN DER MERWE DU TOIT & OTHERS...........................................Defendants
JUDGMENT
WILLIS J:
[1] The first defendant, as applicant, has sought various orders, the first of which relates to a request for further particulars for the purposes of preparation for trial in terms of rule 21 of the High Court Rules, more particularly Rule 21 (2). The second portion of the application relates to a notice in terms of Rule 35 (3) for the discovery of further documents and the last portion of the application relates to request for admissions and enquires in terms of Rule 37 (4).
[2] The respondents in this application resist compliance with the order on the basis that there is no lis between them and the applicant who is the first defendant. In so far as the interpretation of Rule 21 (2) is concerned, I fully endorse the sentiments expressed by Josman J in Control Instruments Finance (Pty) Ltd v Mercantile Ltd 2001 (3) SA 645 (C) from paragraphs 649D to 65B in so far as the interpretation of Rule 35 (3) and 37 (4) are concerned. A plain reading of the rules in themselves relating to any party in the litigation clearly entitles the first defendant as applicant to the relief which it seeks.
[3] Mr Batu appears for the applicant has requested that the costs of two counsel be allowed, this is in my view imminently reasonable there is a claim of some R45 million the case involves complex issues of law and it is entirely reasonable to have two counsel. Indeed Mr Heyns who is appearing for the respondents today, he is being led in the substantive matter by Mr Maritz. If I understood correctly, the reason for the absence of Mr Maritz today is that he is otherwise engaged.
[4] Consequently, the following is the order of the court: (i) The applicant is granted an order in its favour in terms of prayers 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the notice of motion dated 26 September 2012; (ii) The costs of the application are awarded in favour of the applicant which costs are to include the costs of two counsel.