Zulu v Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd (10953/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 261 (23 April 2021)

Zulu v Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd (10953/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 261 (23 April 2021)

The court found that the respondent's refusal to comply with the Rule 35(3) notice on grounds of relevance was not supported by the Uniform Rules of Court. The withdrawal of the first application to compel did not amount to a withdrawal of the Rule 35(3) notice, which remained operative. The respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 35(3) by not producing the requested documents or stating under oath their whereabouts. The court held that relevance should not be determined solely by the party in possession of the documents, and the applicant is entitled to inspect the documents to assess their relevance. The respondent's denial of presence at the location does...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 261
Parties
Applicant: Thulani Zulu; Respondent: Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 April 2021
Case Number
10953/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3)
Outcome
Application to compel granted; respondent directed to make documents available and pay costs.
Judges
PM Mabuse
Legal Topics
Discovery Procedure, Rule 35 Application, Relevance of Documents, Amendment of Pleadings
Civil Procedure Discovery Procedure Rule 35 Application Relevance of Documents Amendment of Pleadings

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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thulani Zulu

Applicant

Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Interlocutory Application / Application to Compel Further Discovery Under Rule 35(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is obliged to comply with the applicant's Rule 35(3) notice and make available the specified documents for inspection and copying.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's objection based on relevance is valid under the Uniform Rules of Court.
  3. 3 Whether the withdrawal of the first application to compel amounted to a withdrawal of the Rule 35(3) notice itself.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's refusal to comply with the Rule 35(3) notice on grounds of relevance was not supported by the Uniform Rules of Court. The withdrawal of the first application to compel did not amount to a withdrawal of the Rule 35(3) notice, which remained operative. The respondent failed to comply with the procedural requirements of Rule 35(3) by not producing the requested documents or stating under oath their whereabouts. The court held that relevance should not be determined solely by the party in possession of the documents, and the applicant is entitled to inspect the documents to assess their relevance. The respondent's denial of presence at the location does...

Court Disposition

Application to compel granted; respondent directed to make documents available and pay costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to make available for inspection and copying the documents listed in the applicant's Rule 35(3) notice dated 10 August 2018.
  • The respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application.