Scormin (Pty) Limited and Another v New Venture Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others (M490/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 16 (21 June 2018)

Scormin (Pty) Limited and Another v New Venture Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others (M490/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 16 (21 June 2018)

The court held that the respondents are only entitled to documents specifically referred to in the applicants' founding affidavit or annexures, as required by Rule 35(12). Requests for proof of payment and other financial documents were found to be requests for further particulars, not discovery, as no specific documents were referenced. The only document the respondents were entitled to inspect was the Umbrella Amendment Termination Agreement, which was referenced in the Scormin Subscription Agreement annexed to the founding affidavit. The applicants failed to allege that the document was privileged, irrelevant, or not in their possession. Therefore, the applicants were ordered to...

Citation
[2018] ZANWHC 16
Parties
Applicant: Scormin (Pty) Limited; Applicant: Frontosa International (Pty) Limited; Respondent: New Venture Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Ishwar Ramroop; Respondent: Mocwane Thayang Godfrey; Respondent: Goudini Chrome (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Minister of Mineral Resources
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 June 2018
Case Number
M490/2017
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Compliance With Rule 35(12) Notice Under Rule 30 a
Outcome
Application to compel discovery under Rule 35(12) granted in part; applicants ordered to produce the Umbrella Amendment Termination Agreement if in their possession; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
N Gutta
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 12, Rule 30a, Interim Interdict, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 12 Rule 30a Interim Interdict Relevance of Evidence

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Scormin (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Frontosa International (Pty) Limited

Applicant

New Venture Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Ishwar Ramroop

Respondent

Mocwane Thayang Godfrey

Respondent

Goudini Chrome (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Minister of Mineral Resources

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Compliance With Rule 35(12) Notice Under Rule 30 a

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are entitled to compel the applicants to produce documents under Rule 35(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the documents requested were referred to in the applicants' founding affidavit or annexures, as required by Rule 35(12).
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are obliged to produce the Umbrella Amendment Termination Agreement referenced in the annexures.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondents are only entitled to documents specifically referred to in the applicants' founding affidavit or annexures, as required by Rule 35(12). Requests for proof of payment and other financial documents were found to be requests for further particulars, not discovery, as no specific documents were referenced. The only document the respondents were entitled to inspect was the Umbrella Amendment Termination Agreement, which was referenced in the Scormin Subscription Agreement annexed to the founding affidavit. The applicants failed to allege that the document was privileged, irrelevant, or not in their possession. Therefore, the applicants were ordered to...

Court Disposition

Application to compel discovery under Rule 35(12) granted in part; applicants ordered to produce the Umbrella Amendment Termination Agreement if in their possession; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The applicants are directed to deliver to the respondents the Umbrella Amendment Termination Agreement referred to in clause 5.1.1.4 of the Reinstated and Amended Subscription Agreement, if in their possession.
  • The first, second and third respondents are jointly and severally liable to pay the costs of the application including the costs of the 19 March 2018.