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
Janse Van Rensburg v South African Legal Practice Council (5946/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 11 (17 March 2025)
Urgent interlocutory application to compel disclosure was struck off for lack of urgency and because discovery in motion proceedings requires leave of court.
Harambe Technologies (Pty) Ltd v Sentech SOC Ltd (2023/058224) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1162 (7 November 2024)
The court found that Sentech failed to provide proper and adequate reasons for its administrative decisions as required by PAJA and Rule 53(1)(b). The documents attached to Sentech's affidavit did not constitute sufficient reasons, and the hearsay evidence provided by Sentech's legal practitioner was disregarded. Harambe's application to compel reasons under Rule 30A was granted, as Sentech was obliged to provide reasons in terms of section 5(1) of PAJA. The striking out application was dismissed as the hearsay evidence was disregarded without the need for a formal order. Sentech's applicatio…
Source excerpt
Botha v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (2021/17543) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1118 (1 November 2024)
The High Court held that Rule 35(12) could be used in motion proceedings without prior Rule 35(13) directions, but dismissed both the Rule 30 and compel applications.
Gridline Construction (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg and Others (2024/076060) [2024] ZAGPJHC 938 (19 September 2024)
The court allowed discovery in an electricity charge dispute, finding exceptional circumstances and ordering production of job cards used to record meter readings.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Van Rensburg (61392/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 521 (5 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed Standard Bank’s application to compel discovery and a further answering affidavit in motion proceedings, with costs.
North West Department of Human Settlement v King Associates Engineering and Project Managers CC and Others (M77/2022) [2024] ZANWHC 96 (3 April 2024)
The High Court held that Rule 35 discovery in motion proceedings requires a prior court order, and dismissed the respondents’ irregular discovery and Rule 53 demands.
Papadakis v Old Mutual Trust (Pty) Ltd NO and Others (16369/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1072 (7 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed an interlocutory bid for discovery in motion proceedings, holding that no exceptional circumstances justified Rule 35(13) relief.
Van Der Heever v Matjhabeng Local Municipality (4194/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 276 (14 July 2023)
The court found that the applicant's request for the respondent to file the record of the decision was not supported by law, as the respondent credibly asserted that no such record exists due to the council's lack of consideration of the agreement. The application was not one to compel discovery, and even if it were, discovery in motion proceedings is only granted in exceptional circumstances and typically after all affidavits have been filed. Regulation 2(3) of the Administrative Review Rules under PAJA does not apply to self-review applications by organs of state. The absence of a record is…
Source excerpt
Superfecta Trading (209) Pty Ltd v Special Investigating Unit and Another (GP06/2022) [2023] ZAST 10 (13 July 2023)
Interlocutory application dismissed with costs; the Tribunal refused separation and wider discovery relief, but granted condonation for late filing of Superfecta’s answering affidavit.
ALG Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Heerden and Others (2699/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 145 (14 June 2023)
The court found that the documents requested by the respondents under rule 35(14) are neither essential nor material to the determination of the issues in the main application, which concern the validity of the appointment of a director, the business rescue resolution, and the appointment of the business rescue practitioner. The documents sought post-date the impugned events and cannot be relevant to their determination. Discovery in motion proceedings is exceptional and should only be granted where the documents are necessary for the fair determination of the case. The respondents' attempt t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
