Tecmed (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Health and Others (16980/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 316 (28 May 2014)

Tecmed (Pty) Ltd and Another v Minister of Health and Others (16980/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 316 (28 May 2014)

The court found that the respondents/plaintiffs had made the relevant documents available for inspection at their attorneys' offices, and the applicants/defendants had failed to inspect them. The only documents not provided were either not referenced in the particulars of claim or the request was too vague to respond to. The court held that the respondents were not obliged to produce documents that were irrelevant or not referenced in the pleadings. The application to strike out the claim was therefore not justified. The court also declined to award costs on a punitive scale, finding no basis for such an order.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 316
Parties
Respondent: Tecmed (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Tecmed Africa (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Minister of Health; Applicant: Department of Health; Applicant: Director-General of National Health; Applicant: Mr Karel El.Jo Smit
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 May 2014
Case Number
16980/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Claim and for Costs Under Rule 35(12) and 35(14)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Ismail
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Rule 35 Uniform Rules, Production of Documents, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Discovery Procedure Rule 35 Uniform Rules Production of Documents 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 3 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Tecmed (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Tecmed Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Minister of Health

Applicant

Department of Health

Applicant

Director-General of National Health

Applicant

Mr Karel El.Jo Smit

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Claim and for Costs Under Rule 35(12) and 35(14)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents/plaintiffs were obliged to produce documents referenced in their particulars of claim under Rule 35(12) and 35(14).
  2. 2 Whether failure to produce such documents justified striking out the respondents' claim.
  3. 3 Whether the documents requested were relevant to reasonably anticipated issues in dispute.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents/plaintiffs had made the relevant documents available for inspection at their attorneys' offices, and the applicants/defendants had failed to inspect them. The only documents not provided were either not referenced in the particulars of claim or the request was too vague to respond to. The court held that the respondents were not obliged to produce documents that were irrelevant or not referenced in the pleadings. The application to strike out the claim was therefore not justified. The court also declined to award costs on a punitive scale, finding no basis for such an order.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.