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
G.I.DP v M.DP (born M) (3619/2022) [2024] ZAECQBHC 4 (30 January 2024)
The High Court postponed an application to compel discovery because the close corporation whose records were sought had not been joined.
Special Investigating Unit v Czakhele Enterprise (Pty) Ltd and Others (KN/04/2022) [2023] ZAST 14 (3 November 2023)
The Special Tribunal partially struck out defamatory and irrelevant material from the SIU’s affidavit and compelled discovery under Rule 35(12), with costs.
Tshenodi and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/11156; 2020/05922; 2019/28478) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1487 (17 January 2023)
The court found that in all three matters, the respondent failed to comply with clear and specific court orders compelling procedural steps under the Uniform Rules, including arranging medico-legal examinations, delivering notices in terms of Rule 36, and attending pre-trial conferences. The respondent's reliance on Legaole Kagiso Sonnyboy v RAF was misplaced, as the facts were distinguishable and did not address the respondent's failure to comply with direct court orders. The court held that Rule 30A was applicable, as the orders were granted by the court and the respondent's non-compliance…
Source excerpt
South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd v Ocean Linght Shipping CC (225 /2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 360 (1 June 2021)
The court held that the Plaintiff is obliged under Rule 35(12) and (14) to permit inspection and copying of original documents referred to in its pleadings, including computer-generated records. The Plaintiff's provision of copies does not satisfy the requirement of production for inspection. Excuses based on SARS possession and lockdown restrictions are not valid defences; arrangements for inspection must be made once circumstances allow. The Plaintiff must also indicate the whereabouts of documents not in its possession. The Defendant is entitled to an interim interdict restraining the Plai…
Source excerpt
Dr Maureen Allem Inc v Baard (44725/2016) [2019] ZAGPJHC 441 (30 October 2019)
The High Court ordered the respondent to fully comply with a Rule 35 discovery notice and dismissed her bid to separate issues, finding the requested material relevant.
Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Ltd v Batswadi Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Ltd and Another (20402/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 48 (14 March 2014)
The High Court ordered inspection of respondents’ computers under Rule 36(6) to test the authenticity of disputed correspondence relied on in the pleadings.
Adcock Ingram Critical Care (Pty) Limited v Batswadi Pharmaceuticals (Pty) Limited and Another (20402/2012) [2014] ZAGPJHC 41 (14 March 2014)
High Court decision on Rule 36(6) discovery allowing inspection of computers and backups to test the authenticity of disputed correspondence.
De Beer v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd In re: SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd v De Beer (31769/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 117 (22 September 2009)
The court set aside a notice of bar and held that requested documents could be inspected under Rule 35(14) because they were relevant to pleading.
Fluorovision (Pty) Ltd v Bloomberg Orthopaedics & Neurosciences (Pty) Ltd (5545/2005) [2006] ZAFSHC 76 (15 June 2006)
The court held that the respondent's entitlement to discovery under Rule 35(12) arises at any time before the hearing, and the applicant's refusal to produce the business plan cannot be justified on the grounds advanced. Confidentiality does not amount to privilege, and the applicant failed to establish facts relieving it of the obligation to produce the business plan. The court exercised its discretion against imposing any qualification on the respondent's right to inspect and copy the business plan, finding that full inspection is warranted. The objection regarding the product list was uphe…
Source excerpt
Explore more
