Zisiwe v Naude N.O and Others (KP309/2018) [2025] ZANWHC 106 (23 June 2025)

Zisiwe v Naude N.O and Others (KP309/2018) [2025] ZANWHC 106 (23 June 2025)

The court found that the applicant's request for further particulars was not strictly necessary for trial preparation as required by rule 21. The application was an attempt to repair deficiencies in the applicant's own case and was based on speculation rather than necessity. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he would be unable to present his case effectively without the requested particulars. The second and third respondents were improperly joined, as they had no direct or substantial interest in the relief sought and were not custodians of the requested information. The request against the first respondent was incorrectly framed and sought privileged communications, which are...

Citation
[2025] ZANWHC 106
Parties
Applicant: Bongani Zisiwe; Respondent: Theunis Johannes Naude N.O; Respondent: Khulekile Jacob Mogorosi; Respondent: Kebogile Suzana Moleta
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2025
Case Number
KP309/2018
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Further Particulars for Trial Under Rule 21
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.
Judges
Reddy
Legal Topics
Further Particulars, Joinder of Parties, Trial Preparation, Legal Privilege
Civil Procedure Further Particulars Joinder of Parties Trial Preparation Legal Privilege

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 22 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongani Zisiwe

Applicant

Theunis Johannes Naude N.O

Respondent

Khulekile Jacob Mogorosi

Respondent

Kebogile Suzana Moleta

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Further Particulars for Trial Under Rule 21

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to further particulars from the respondents under rule 21 for trial preparation.
  2. 2 Whether the second and third respondents are properly joined as parties with a direct and substantial interest in the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the information sought from the first respondent is strictly necessary for trial preparation or should be obtained through discovery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's request for further particulars was not strictly necessary for trial preparation as required by rule 21. The application was an attempt to repair deficiencies in the applicant's own case and was based on speculation rather than necessity. The applicant failed to demonstrate that he would be unable to present his case effectively without the requested particulars. The second and third respondents were improperly joined, as they had no direct or substantial interest in the relief sought and were not custodians of the requested information. The request against the first respondent was incorrectly framed and sought privileged communications, which are...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.