Steyl N.O and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (4197/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 161 (5 August 2021)

Steyl N.O and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (4197/2020) [2021] ZAFSHC 161 (5 August 2021)

Condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit was refused because the applicants failed to explain the entire period of delay and did not show good prospects of success in the application to compel. The application to compel discovery was dismissed because most of the documents requested were not referred to in the respondent's particulars of claim and thus did not fall within Rule 35(12). The applicants confused the procedures under Rule 35(12), Rule 35(14), and Rule 30A, resulting in a procedurally defective application. The notice of bar issued by the respondent after the application to compel was an irregular step, and the applicants were granted an extension of ten days...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 161
Parties
Applicant: Marthinus Phillipus Steyl N.O.; Applicant: Cornelius Kapp Steyl N.O.; Applicant: Jacob Johannes Kotze Dempsey N.O.; Respondent: Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2021
Case Number
4197/2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Discovery and Condonation for Late Filing of Replying Affidavit
Outcome
Application to compel dismissed; condonation for late filing of replying affidavit refused; extension of time to file plea granted; costs awarded against applicants.
Judges
G.J.M. Wright
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Condonation, Notice of Bar, Pleading Extension, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Discovery Procedure Condonation Notice of Bar Pleading Extension 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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Marthinus Phillipus Steyl N.O.

Applicant

Cornelius Kapp Steyl N.O.

Applicant

Jacob Johannes Kotze Dempsey N.O.

Applicant

Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Discovery and Condonation for Late Filing of Replying Affidavit

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether condonation should be granted for the late filing of the replying affidavit.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to an order compelling discovery of documents under Rule 35(12).
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an extension of time to file their plea.

Ratio Decidendi

Condonation for the late filing of the replying affidavit was refused because the applicants failed to explain the entire period of delay and did not show good prospects of success in the application to compel. The application to compel discovery was dismissed because most of the documents requested were not referred to in the respondent's particulars of claim and thus did not fall within Rule 35(12). The applicants confused the procedures under Rule 35(12), Rule 35(14), and Rule 30A, resulting in a procedurally defective application. The notice of bar issued by the respondent after the application to compel was an irregular step, and the applicants were granted an extension of ten days...

Court Disposition

Application to compel dismissed; condonation for late filing of replying affidavit refused; extension of time to file plea granted; costs awarded against applicants.

Orders

  • Condonation for the late filing of the Replying Affidavit is denied.
  • The application to compel the Respondent to make available documents as requested in the Rule 35(12) Notice, dated 11 March 2021, is dismissed.