Visser N.O and Others v Van Niekerk and Others (5937/2016) [2021] ZAFSHC 187 (5 August 2021)

Visser N.O and Others v Van Niekerk and Others (5937/2016) [2021] ZAFSHC 187 (5 August 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the further particulars requested were strictly necessary for trial preparation as required by Rule 21(2). Many of the requests amounted to attempts to obtain evidence or information that should have been sought through discovery or admissions, not through further particulars. The applicants had ample opportunity during pre-trial conferences and discovery to address any prejudice or insufficiency in the respondents' replies but failed to do so. The delay of almost three years in bringing the application was not adequately explained and weighed against granting relief. The respondents' refusal to provide further particulars did...

Citation
[2021] ZAFSHC 187
Parties
Applicant: Martin Visser N.O.; Applicant: Carl Francois van der Linde N.O.; Applicant: Rolene Kolver N.O.; Applicant: Renier Oosthuizen N.O.; Respondent: Johan Altus van Niekerk; Respondent: Hermanus Christoffel Pretorius; Respondent: Anna Aletta Roberts N.O.; Respondent: The Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 August 2021
Case Number
5937/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Compel Further Particulars Prior to Trial
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Wright AJ
Legal Topics
Rule 21 Further Particulars, Pre Trial Procedures, Discovery, Judicial Discretion, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Rule 21 Further Particulars Pre Trial Procedures Discovery Judicial Discretion Costs Order

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 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Visser N.O.

Applicant

Carl Francois van der Linde N.O.

Applicant

Rolene Kolver N.O.

Applicant

Renier Oosthuizen N.O.

Applicant

Johan Altus van Niekerk

Respondent

Hermanus Christoffel Pretorius

Respondent

Anna Aletta Roberts N.O.

Respondent

The Master of the High Court, Bloemfontein

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Interlocutory Application to Compel Further Particulars Prior to Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to an order compelling the respondents to furnish further and better particulars under Rule 21.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars requested are strictly necessary to enable the applicants to prepare for trial.
  3. 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application to compel affects the applicants' entitlement to relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to demonstrate that the further particulars requested were strictly necessary for trial preparation as required by Rule 21(2). Many of the requests amounted to attempts to obtain evidence or information that should have been sought through discovery or admissions, not through further particulars. The applicants had ample opportunity during pre-trial conferences and discovery to address any prejudice or insufficiency in the respondents' replies but failed to do so. The delay of almost three years in bringing the application was not adequately explained and weighed against granting relief. The respondents' refusal to provide further particulars did...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to compel further and better particulars is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.