Ubuntu Chicken Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank (5036/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 38 (13 February 2024)

Ubuntu Chicken Products (Pty) Ltd and Another v First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank (5036/2021) [2024] ZAFSHC 38 (13 February 2024)

The court found that the defendants failed to plead material facts supporting their entitlement to a hiatus from payment obligations or the existence of a government guarantee. Their plea did not comply with Rule 18(6), as it lacked particulars of the alleged contract, its parties, and terms. The relevance of...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 38
Parties
Applicant: Ubuntu Chicken Products (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: G.J. Bredenkamp; Respondent: First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 February 2024
Case Number
5036/2021
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3)
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
P E Molitsoane
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Uniform Rule 35, Pleading Requirements, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Uniform Rule 35 Pleading Requirements Relevance of Evidence

Source-derived case record

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ubuntu Chicken Products (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

G.J. Bredenkamp

Applicant

First Rand Bank Ltd t/a First National Bank

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are entitled to further discovery of documents under Rule 35(3).
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to any triable issue in the pleadings.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants have pleaded sufficient material facts to justify discovery of the requested documents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendants failed to plead material facts supporting their entitlement to a hiatus from payment obligations or the existence of a government guarantee. Their plea did not comply with Rule 18(6), as it lacked particulars of the alleged contract, its parties, and terms. The relevance of documents for discovery is determined by the pleadings, and absent a triable issue, there is no matter in question to which the requested documents relate. The defendants cannot use discovery to search for facts to support a defence not properly pleaded. Allowing the application would amount to a fishing expedition, which is impermissible. Accordingly, the application to compel...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs, which costs shall include the costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.