Weziswe Platinum Limited v Santam Limited (33006/2018) [2025] ZAGPJHC 608 (13 June 2025)

Weziswe Platinum Limited v Santam Limited (33006/2018) [2025] ZAGPJHC 608 (13 June 2025)

The court found that although the respondent delivered its notice in terms of Rule 36(9)(a) outside the prescribed period, Rule 36(9) itself provides the appropriate sanction and remedy for non-compliance, namely that the party must seek the consent of the other party or, failing that, the leave of the court. The applicant failed to demonstrate real prejudice that would result from the late delivery, and the Rule 30 application was considered overtechnical and inappropriate in circumstances where Rule 36(9) governs the consequences of non-compliance. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application under Rule 30 and granted relief to allow the action to proceed to trial, with...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 608
Parties
Applicant: Weziswe Platinum Limited; Respondent: Santam Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 June 2025
Case Number
33006/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Irregular Step and Counter Application for Leave to Call Expert Witness
Outcome
Application in terms of Rule 30 dismissed with costs; respondent's notices in terms of Rule 36(9)(a) and (b) admitted to the record; applicant granted leave to deliver its own expert notice within 60 days; costs of counter-application to be costs in the cause.
Judges
LM du Plessis
Legal Topics
Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings, Rule 36 Expert Evidence, Condonation, Prejudice, Judicial Discretion
Civil Procedure Rule 30 Irregular Proceedings Rule 36 Expert Evidence Condonation Prejudice Judicial Discretion

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 9 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Weziswe Platinum Limited

Applicant

Santam Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside Irregular Step and Counter Application for Leave to Call Expert Witness

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's notice in terms of Rule 36(9)(a) delivered outside the prescribed period constitutes an irregular step that should be set aside under Rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant will suffer real prejudice if the respondent is permitted to call an expert witness despite late delivery of the notice.
  3. 3 Whether Rule 30 is the appropriate remedy for non-compliance with Rule 36(9)(a), or whether Rule 36(9) provides its own sanction and remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that although the respondent delivered its notice in terms of Rule 36(9)(a) outside the prescribed period, Rule 36(9) itself provides the appropriate sanction and remedy for non-compliance, namely that the party must seek the consent of the other party or, failing that, the leave of the court. The applicant failed to demonstrate real prejudice that would result from the late delivery, and the Rule 30 application was considered overtechnical and inappropriate in circumstances where Rule 36(9) governs the consequences of non-compliance. The court exercised its discretion to dismiss the application under Rule 30 and granted relief to allow the action to proceed to trial, with...

Court Disposition

Application in terms of Rule 30 dismissed with costs; respondent's notices in terms of Rule 36(9)(a) and (b) admitted to the record; applicant granted leave to deliver its own expert notice within 60 days; costs of counter-application to be costs in the cause.

Orders

  • The application in terms of Rule 30 is dismissed with costs, counsel's fees to be at Scale A.
  • Consent is granted for the respondent's notices in terms of Rule 36(9)(a) and 36(9)(b) to be part of the record in the action.