South Africa Case Law

Motlana v Msibi N.O and Another (38673/2022)

Motlana v Msibi N.O and Another (38673/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 515 (4 June 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

38673/2022

Judge

Retief

The court held that discovery in application proceedings is not a right but an exceptional remedy available only if the court grants leave under Rule 35(13). The applicant failed to obtain such leave before serving her notice for discovery, rendering her request and any compel relief incompetent. The applicant's notice did not distinguish between documents sought under Rule 35(12) and (14), and the request was overly broad, amounting to a fishing expedition. The procedural irregularities in the applicant's counter-application further undermined her entitlement to relief. The court exercised i…

Source excerpt

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Uniform Rules Of Court Rule 35
• Exceptional Circumstances For Discovery
• Costs Orders

Nedbank Limited v Lococo 3 (Proprietary) Limited (D10954/2023)

Nedbank Limited v Lococo 3 (Proprietary) Limited (D10954/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 30 (22 May 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D10954/2023

Judge

Mossop

The High Court dismissed a discovery counter-application in liquidation proceedings, holding that exceptional circumstances under Uniform Rule 35(13) were not shown.

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 35 13
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Shifren Clause
• Discovery-in-application-proceedings

J.P.R.D v L.S.D (20916/2018)

J.P.R.D v L.S.D (20916/2018) [2023] ZAWCHC 296 (23 November 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20916/2018

Judge

Wille

The court found that the applicant would suffer manifest injustice if required to oppose the respondent's variation interim maintenance application without access to documents that may directly affect her financial position. The subpoena was issued well before the variation application and was not intended to influence it. The respondent's argument that a stay would open floodgates for discovery applications was rejected, as the case is fact-specific and the delays in the variation application were attributable to the respondent. The prejudice to the respondent is minimal, as the existing int…

Source excerpt

• Interim Maintenance
• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Stay Of Proceedings
• Rule 43 Applications

Special Investigating Unit and Another v LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd (GP03/2022)

Special Investigating Unit and Another v LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd (GP03/2022) [2022] ZAST 15 (29 June 2022)

Court

Special Tribunal

Case number

GP03/2022

Judge

L.T. Modiba

The Tribunal held that Uniform Rule 53 does not apply to self-review applications brought by organs of State such as the SIU and the MEC: Gauteng Department of Health. The review application was properly brought under Tribunal Rule 10, and the respondents are not obliged to deliver a record of the impugned decision in terms of Uniform Rule 53(1)(b). LNG Scientific (Pty) Ltd is not prejudiced by the procedure adopted, as the respondents have tendered discovery of relevant documents under Tribunal Rule 17(4) read with Uniform Rule 35(13), (1), and (2). The Tribunal specified that discovery shou…

Source excerpt

• Self Review
• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 53
• Special Tribunals Act
• Access To Record
• Costs In Interlocutory Applications

Fourie N.O and Others v Bosch and Others (56027/2020)

Fourie N.O and Others v Bosch and Others (56027/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 553 (27 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56027/2020

Judge

Mabuse

The High Court dismissed an interlocutory application to compel discovery in sequestration proceedings, holding that Rule 35(12) and 35(13) were not properly invoked.

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 35
• Production Of Documents
• Points In Limine
• Costs Order
• Civil-procedure

Rustenburg Local Municipality v Are Direng Transport and Labour Hire and Another (UM 90/2020)

Rustenburg Local Municipality v Are Direng Transport and Labour Hire and Another (UM 90/2020) [2021] ZANWHC 61 (26 August 2021)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

UM 190/2020

Judge

Petersen

The court held that the respondents' Notice of Discovery, delivered in review proceedings under Rule 53, did not comply with Rule 35(13) of the Uniform Rules of Court. Discovery in application proceedings is an exceptional procedure and only applies if the court so directs under Rule 35(13). No such direction was sought or granted in this matter. Furthermore, the respondents were out of time to amend their founding papers under Rule 53(4) when the Notice of Discovery was delivered. The Notice of Discovery therefore constituted an irregular procedural step and usurped the court's discretion. T…

Source excerpt

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Rule 53 Review
• Rule 35 Discovery
• Irregular Procedural Step

Burger N.O. and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (324/18 & 409/2018)

Burger N.O. and Others v Land and Agricultural Development Bank of South Africa (324/18 & 409/2018) [2018] ZANCHC 93 (22 November 2018)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

324/18 & 409/2018

Judge

BM Pakati

The High Court granted condonation and ordered discovery in an urgent banking dispute, holding that Rule 35(14) could apply and that the respondents needed the agreements to plead.

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Rule 35 Production
• Condonation
• Privilege And Confidentiality
• Locus Standi
• Extension Of Time

Mbuyane Communal Property Association v Sibiya NO and Others (45865/2014)

Mbuyane Communal Property Association v Sibiya NO and Others (45865/2014) [2017] ZAGPPHC 724 (2 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

45865/2014

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The court dismissed two interlocutory applications to compel discovery and production, holding that rule 35 discovery in application proceedings requires a prior rule 35(13) direction.

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Rule 35 Uniform Rules
• Rule 30a Uniform Rules
• Locus Standi
• Authority Of Attorney
• National Environmental Management Act

Executive Carports (Pty) Ltd t/a Executive Carports v Airports Company South Africa Ltd and Others (42166/2015)

Executive Carports (Pty) Ltd t/a Executive Carports v Airports Company South Africa Ltd and Others (42166/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 241 (30 August 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42166/2015

Judge

Fisher

The High Court granted discovery in a tender-review interlocutory application, finding exceptional circumstances under rule 35 and postponing the main hearing.

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Tender Review
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Rule 35 Uniform Rules
• Public Procurement Irregularity
• Discovery-in-application-proceedings

Mtshixa v Ukweza Holdings (Pty) Ltd; In re: Ukweza Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Mtshixa (EL495/2016, ECD1195/2016)

Mtshixa v Ukweza Holdings (Pty) Ltd; In re: Ukweza Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Mtshixa (EL495/2016, ECD1195/2016) [2016] ZAECELLC 10 (20 December 2016)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL495/2016, ECD1195/2016

Judge

S M Mbenenge

The court dismissed an interlocutory discovery application in rescission proceedings, holding that discovery in application matters is exceptional and no exceptional circumstances were shown.

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Rule 35 Uniform Rules
• Exceptional Circumstances
• Summary Judgment
• Discovery-in-application-proceedings