Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
M.M v R.O (6296/2022) [2024] ZAWCHC 203 (13 August 2024)
The court dismissed a reconsideration application and upheld an order requiring the applicant’s brother to produce documents and give oral evidence in a Rule 43 variation matter.
Altron TMT (Pty) Ltd v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (23/075060) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1161 (8 September 2023)
The High Court set aside a successful tenderer’s confidentiality claims and ordered disclosure of Rule 53 record documents in a municipal tender review.
Value Logostics Limited v Britz and Others (2020/13997) [2021] ZAGPJHC 682 (15 November 2021)
The court found that the subpoena was directed at Vantage Digital and, despite technical defects in service, there was substantial compliance with the rules as the subpoena was served at the registered office and received by Ms Britz as sole director and agent for the company. The documents sought are relevant to the issues in the underlying action, specifically whether Mr Vrany breached the restraint of trade by soliciting customers and the quantification of damages. Confidentiality concerns do not justify refusal to produce the documents, but the court imposed a protective order to limit th…
Source excerpt
Scharrighuisen NO and Others v Scharrighuisen and Others (6837/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 19 (21 January 2021)
The court found that the subpoena was not premature, irrelevant, or an abuse of process. The documents sought were relevant to the issues in dispute, particularly the plaintiff's claims for maintenance and the nature of the trust assets. Confidentiality did not bar production, and no privilege was claimed. The trust failed to demonstrate any prejudice or that the subpoena was issued for an extraneous purpose. The trust also failed to establish locus standi or a sufficient interest in setting aside the subpoena, especially as the first defendant did not object. The court held that the procedur…
Source excerpt
R.S N.O and Others v C.M.S and Others (6837 / 2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 6 (21 January 2021)
The High Court refused to set aside a subpoena for trust bank records in a divorce dispute, finding the documents relevant and no abuse of process shown.
Botha v 4D Health (Pty) Limited (2019/18976) [2020] ZAGPPHC 268 (15 June 2020)
High Court application to compel production of documents referenced in an expert report. The court ordered inspection under Rule 35(12) and costs against the respondent.
Waldeck NO and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (4013/18) [2019] ZAMPMHC 4 (14 October 2019)
The court found that the respondent's reliance on confidentiality was not supported by sufficient factual detail and that any confidentiality was waived by permitting inspection of the documents. The documents referenced in the pleadings are relevant to the respondent's locus standi and must be disclosed to the applicants to enable them to plead and challenge the respondent's standing. The respondent's refusal to allow copying was unreasonable, especially as the applicants are not competitors and have undertaken not to disclose the documents to third parties. The court ordered discovery and c…
Source excerpt
TS v TS (28917/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 29 (2 March 2018)
Rule 43 ruling on financial disclosure in a divorce dispute, confirming broad disclosure of trust and company documents for maintenance purposes.
Mogwele Waste (Pty) Ltd v Brynard (CA15/2015) [2016] ZALAC 104; (2016) 37 ILJ 2051 (LAC) (20 April 2016)
The Labour Appeal Court held that a party should not use a subpoena to bypass discovery against an opposing party, setting the subpoena aside as an abuse of process.
Body Corporate of the Delfora Scheme N.O SS 117/1984 v H & M Property Management (34270/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 44 (8 March 2016)
The court ordered production of complete unredacted bank statements under Rule 35(12), rejecting confidentiality and relevance objections, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.
Explore more
