Visser and Others v Vardakos Attorneys and Others (14355/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 98 (8 June 2012)

Visser and Others v Vardakos Attorneys and Others (14355/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 98 (8 June 2012)

The court held that the defendants failed to respond to the Rule 35(3) notice and did not adequately substantiate their objections to the relevance of the documents sought. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the documents requested may be relevant to the issues in dispute, including those relating to Bingo licences in the North West Province. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to inspect the documents to determine their relevance, and that any issues regarding relevance could be more efficiently addressed at trial. The application was granted, and the defendants were ordered to make the documents available for inspection and copying, and to pay the costs of the application,...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 98
Parties
Plaintiff: Frits Stefanus Visser; Plaintiff: Frederick Barnard; Plaintiff: Saidex Marketing (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Vardakos Attorneys; Defendant: Vasilios Basil Vardakos; Respondent: Nic Jagga
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2012
Case Number
14355/2010
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(3) Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the plaintiffs.
Judges
P C Van der Byl
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Rule 35 Application, Relevance of Evidence
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Rule 35 Application 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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frits Stefanus Visser

Plaintiff

Frederick Barnard

Plaintiff

Saidex Marketing (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Vardakos Attorneys

Defendant

Vasilios Basil Vardakos

Defendant

Nic Jagga

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(3) Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants are obliged to make available for inspection and copying the documents listed in the plaintiffs' Rule 35(3) notice.
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute between the parties.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiffs have sufficiently set out the basis for requiring discovery of the documents in their founding affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants failed to respond to the Rule 35(3) notice and did not adequately substantiate their objections to the relevance of the documents sought. The plaintiffs demonstrated that the documents requested may be relevant to the issues in dispute, including those relating to Bingo licences in the North West Province. The court found that the plaintiffs were entitled to inspect the documents to determine their relevance, and that any issues regarding relevance could be more efficiently addressed at trial. The application was granted, and the defendants were ordered to make the documents available for inspection and copying, and to pay the costs of the application,...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The First, Second and Third Defendants are directed to make available for inspection and copying the documents listed in paragraphs 1 to 16 of the Plaintiffs' notice in terms of Rule 35(3) dated 1 June 2011.
  • The First, Second and Third Defendants are directed to pay, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, the costs of this application, such costs to include the costs consequent upon the employment of senior counsel.