Zoned Earth Development Company (Pty) Ltd v ASAP Rentals CC t/a ASAP Properties (50763/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 182 (16 May 2017)
The application is dismissed because Uniform Rule 35(12) does not provide for the striking out of particulars of claim for failure to produce documents; such relief should be sought under Uniform Rule 30A. Furthermore, the Fidelity Fund Certificates requested for the period 31 December 2013 to 27 March 2014 are irrelevant to the respondent's claim for commission, as the agreements in question do not fall within that period. The respondent does not possess the certificates, and cannot be compelled to produce documents that are irrelevant or not in its possession. Costs are awarded against the respondent for the reserved costs of 12 August 2015, as the respondent occasioned the postponement...
- Citation
- [2017] ZAGPPHC 182
- Parties
- Applicant: Zoned Earth Development Company (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: ASAP Rentals CC t/a ASAP Properties
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 16 May 2017
- Case Number
- 50763/2014
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Opposed Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim for Non Compliance With Document Production Order
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs; respondent ordered to pay reserved costs of 12 August 2015.
- Judges
- E.M. Kubushi
- Legal Topics
- Uniform Rule 35, Estate Agents Affairs Act, Fidelity Fund Certificate, Striking Out Particulars of Claim, Document Production, Costs Orders
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Zoned Earth Development Company (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
ASAP Rentals CC t/a ASAP Properties
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Application to Strike Out Particulars of Claim for Non Compliance With Document Production Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent's particulars of claim should be struck out for failing to produce Fidelity Fund Certificates as ordered.
- 2 Whether Uniform Rule 35(12) provides for the relief sought by the applicant.
- 3 Whether the requested Fidelity Fund Certificates are relevant to the respondent's claim for commission.
Ratio Decidendi
The application is dismissed because Uniform Rule 35(12) does not provide for the striking out of particulars of claim for failure to produce documents; such relief should be sought under Uniform Rule 30A. Furthermore, the Fidelity Fund Certificates requested for the period 31 December 2013 to 27 March 2014 are irrelevant to the respondent's claim for commission, as the agreements in question do not fall within that period. The respondent does not possess the certificates, and cannot be compelled to produce documents that are irrelevant or not in its possession. Costs are awarded against the respondent for the reserved costs of 12 August 2015, as the respondent occasioned the postponement...
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs; respondent ordered to pay reserved costs of 12 August 2015.
Orders
- The application is dismissed with costs.
- The respondent is ordered to pay the reserved costs of 12 August 2015.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment