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.G.K v M.J.K (2024/074608) [2025] ZAGPPHC 535 (23 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel discovery under Rule 35(14), holding the requested documents were not shown to be essential for pleading.
Afadzi v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2020/18095) [2025] ZAGPJHC 506 (23 May 2025)
High Court dismissed an application to compel further discovery, finding the respondents had substantially complied with Rule 35(3) by stating the documents were not in their possession.
Tuswa v Minister of Police and Another (2014/44510) [2025] ZAGPJHC 507 (22 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a defence, finding the respondent had complied with Rule 35(3) by swearing the requested SAP 15 document did not exist.
N.B v R.B (38752/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 523 (29 April 2025)
The High Court compelled discovery under rule 35(7), rejecting a respondent’s attempt to withhold discovery pending an unfiled R100 000 payment claim.
National Director of Prosecutions v Shimane and Others (2020/28180) [2025] ZAGPJHC 56 (30 January 2025)
The court found that the NDPP failed to establish grounds for rescission under Rule 42(1)(a) or common law. The NDPP did not demonstrate that the order was erroneously sought or granted in its absence, as its attorney had proper notice and the NDPP elected not to participate. The lack of custodianship of the documents sought was not a valid defence, as proper discovery obligations require disclosure of documents previously in possession. The NDPP failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for its default, with no adequate account of the delay or its own passive conduct. The a…
Source excerpt
Roper and Others v Gert Nel Incorporated (29116/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1058 (31 October 2024)
The court compelled compliance with a Rule 35(3) notice, holding that the respondent had to respond by affidavit and that the applicants’ deponent was competent.
L.M (born W) v L.M (850/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 269; [2024] 4 All SA 854 (FB) (29 August 2024)
The High Court found the respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a prior discovery order, struck out scandalous affidavit passages, and imposed a suspended prison sentence.
Makgato and Another v Local Government Sector Education and Training Authority (21244/18) [2024] ZAGPJHC 639 (15 July 2024)
The High Court refused to compel further discovery under Rule 35(7), finding the respondent’s affidavit candid and unsupported by evidence that the documents existed.
AD Trade Belgium SPRL Private Limited v Central Bank of Guinea and Others (57858/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 300; [2024] 2 All SA 806 (GP) (5 April 2024)
The court held that Rule 21 of the Uniform Rules of Court applies to all parties to proceedings, including defendants who have not filed a plea and who elect to abide by the court's decision. Standard Bank, as a party to the litigation, can be compelled to deliver further particulars if such particulars are strictly necessary for trial preparation. The court found that the information sought by Ad Trade regarding the ownership, control, and transactions of the disputed accounts is central to the issues in the main action and necessary to prevent surprise at trial. Standard Bank's obligations…
Source excerpt
ALFS Tippers CC v Baloyi and Others (2020/19556) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1177 (27 September 2023)
The court held that the obligation to discover under Rule 35 is not limited to personal possession but extends to documents under a party's control or power. Mapasa, as CEO of Basil Read, has access and control over the requested documents and is therefore obliged to discover them. The remaining respondents failed to comply with Rule 35(1) by not delivering proper discovery affidavits, and their reliance on a narrow interpretation of 'possession' was rejected. The court found that the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute and that discovery is necessary for a fair hearing. Th…
Source excerpt
Explore more
