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
Meynell Investments Limited v Azarenka (Pty) Ltd (3706/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 216 (22 August 2024)
The court dismissed a security-for-costs and discovery application, granted condonation for late filing, postponed the winding-up case, and ordered punitive wasted costs.
Nedbank Limited v Lococo 3 (Proprietary) Limited (D10954/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 39 (21 June 2024)
The High Court refused a postponement in liquidation proceedings, finding the respondent had not shown good cause and that related matters should proceed.
Nedbank Limited v Lococo 3 (Proprietary) Limited (Leave to Appeal) (D10954/2023) [2024] ZAKZDHC 38 (19 June 2024)
Leave to appeal was refused in a liquidation-related discovery dispute. The court held the discovery order was not appealable and no exceptional circumstances justified discovery.
Steyn v Meyer (59537/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 772 (13 October 2022)
The High Court set aside a subpoena duces tecum issued in application proceedings, holding that Rule 38 is for trial witnesses and documents, not applications.
Botha NO and Others v Van Zyl (16604/2019) [2020] ZAWCHC 109 (11 September 2020)
The court dismissed a Rule 35(13) discovery application and confirmed a provisional sequestration, placing the respondent’s estate under final sequestration.
Naidoo and Another v Ferreiras (Pty) Limited (69094/2014) [2016] ZAGPPHC 897 (9 September 2016)
The court held that the applicants were not entitled to invoke Rule 35(14) without first obtaining direction from the court under Rule 35(13). Rule 35(14) applies to actions and pleadings, not applications or answering affidavits, unless the court specifically directs otherwise. The applicants failed to seek such direction and did not demonstrate that the requested documents were essential and relevant to a reasonably anticipated issue. The respondent's case was straightforward, and the applicants merely needed to admit, deny, or justify the alleged payment. The application was therefore dism…
Source excerpt
Hollard Life Insurance Company Limited v Cover Line (Pty) Ltd and Others (66656/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 701 (25 September 2014)
The court held that Rule 35(3) and Rule 35(14) do not apply in circumstances where no appearance to defend has been entered and default judgment has been granted. Discovery in application proceedings is only permitted in exceptional circumstances and upon application to the court under Rule 35(13). In this case, the applicant did not apply for the court to make Rule 35(13) applicable and did not set out any exceptional circumstances. As there was no pending action and no application for discovery, the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. The application to compel was dismissed wit…
Source excerpt
Explore more
