Rabie v Cotterell N.O and Others (EL813/2017) [2018] ZAECELLC 10 (1 November 2018)

Rabie v Cotterell N.O and Others (EL813/2017) [2018] ZAECELLC 10 (1 November 2018)

The court held that the documents listed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 43 and 44 of the plaintiff's notice in terms of rule 35(3) may be relevant to the central issue of Mr Cotterell's authority to promote the plaintiff, authorise use of a company vehicle, and instruct certain transactions. Attendance registers and minutes could reveal discussions pertinent to authority, while employment contracts and related correspondence might demonstrate ostensible authority. The court found the plaintiff's request for correspondence in paragraphs 16 and 17 to be based on an incorrect premise and irrelevant. The court ordered the defendants to make the relevant documents available for inspection,...

Citation
[2018] ZAECELLC 10
Parties
Applicant: Pantellis Yiannis Rabie; Respondent: Antony Charles Patrick Cotterell N.O; Respondent: Anita Bhika N.O; Respondent: Bridget Mary Naude N.O
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2018
Case Number
EL813/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(3)
Outcome
Application granted in part; defendants ordered to make specified documents available for inspection and to pay costs.
Judges
G H Bloem
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Breach of Contract, Ostensible Authority, Employment Contracts
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Discovery of Documents Breach of Contract Ostensible Authority Employment Contracts

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pantellis Yiannis Rabie

Applicant

Antony Charles Patrick Cotterell N.O

Respondent

Anita Bhika N.O

Respondent

Bridget Mary Naude N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Compel Discovery Under Rule 35(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants must make available for inspection the documents listed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 43 and 44 of the plaintiff's notice in terms of rule 35(3).
  2. 2 Whether the requested documents are or may be relevant to the issue of Mr Cotterell's authority.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the documents listed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 43 and 44 of the plaintiff's notice in terms of rule 35(3) may be relevant to the central issue of Mr Cotterell's authority to promote the plaintiff, authorise use of a company vehicle, and instruct certain transactions. Attendance registers and minutes could reveal discussions pertinent to authority, while employment contracts and related correspondence might demonstrate ostensible authority. The court found the plaintiff's request for correspondence in paragraphs 16 and 17 to be based on an incorrect premise and irrelevant. The court ordered the defendants to make the relevant documents available for inspection,...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; defendants ordered to make specified documents available for inspection and to pay costs.

Orders

  • The defendants must make available for inspection by the plaintiff, within fifteen days from service of this order, the documents listed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 43 and 44 of the plaintiff's notice in terms of rule 35(3) served on 15 March 2018.
  • The defendants may delete private and confidential information contained in the documents listed in paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, and 7 of the plaintiff's notice.