South Africa Case Law

ADP Marine & Modular Proprietary Limited v Rocher and Others (5701/2022)

ADP Marine & Modular Proprietary Limited v Rocher and Others (5701/2022) [2025] ZAWCHC 281 (9 July 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5701/2022

Judge

Sipunzi

The court found that the applicant failed to demonstrate any necessity or urgency for repeated preservation relief, as the Anton Pillar order of 25 July 2023 already secured the preservation of the seized information and documentation in the custody of the Sheriff. No evidence of threat or interference was presented. Regarding the request to use the seized material for criminal complaints, the court held that the SAPS has sufficient statutory mechanisms to obtain evidence for criminal investigations, and it is not the role of the civil court to dictate or facilitate the use of such material i…

Source excerpt

• Anton Pillar Order
• Preservation Of Evidence
• Copyright Infringement
• Confidential Information
• Discovery Procedure
• Criminal Complaint Utilisation

Transnet SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Kimited (075722-2025)

Transnet SOC Limited v Gijima Holdings (Pty) Kimited (075722-2025) [2025] ZAGPPHC 690 (30 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

075722-2025

Judge

Minnaar

The court finds that the matter is not suitable for final determination on the papers due to extensive disputes of fact regarding the parties' respective obligations under the Master Services Agreement, the feasibility of disengagement, and the technical capacity of the applicant. The respondent's request for referral to oral evidence is justified. The application is postponed and referred for oral evidence to resolve the identified issues, including the applicability of the exceptio non adimpleti contractus and whether annexure FA12 constitutes an agreement. Costs are reserved pending the ou…

Source excerpt

• Specific Performance
• Contractual Interpretation
• Reciprocal Obligations
• Exceptio Non Adimpleti Contractus
• Urgent Interdict
• Discovery Procedure

Griessel and Another v De Kock N.O and Others (79315/23)

Griessel and Another v De Kock N.O and Others (79315/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 540 (30 May 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

79315/23

Judge

JF Grobler

High Court application to compel further discovery under Rule 35(7) dismissed with punitive costs after the court found the requests unjustified.

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Application
• Costs Order
• Abuse Of Process
• Discovery-procedure
• Rule-35

Mokoka v JP Markets (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/013189)

Mokoka v JP Markets (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/013189) [2025] ZAGPJHC 463 (13 May 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/013189

Judge

Siwendu

The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a defence under Rule 21(4), finding the notice and relief sought were procedurally defective and conflated with discovery issues.

• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Rule 21 Further Particulars
• Discovery Procedure
• Striking Out Defence
• Self Represented Litigant
• Uniform-rules-of-court

Kunsani v Minister of Police and Others (3635/2022)

Kunsani v Minister of Police and Others (3635/2022) [2025] ZAECMHC 34 (6 May 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

3635/2022

Judge

N Cengani-Mbakaza

The court found that the defendants' arguments regarding misjoinder and non-joinder of IPID were without merit. IPID's independent investigative role does not make it a necessary party to the proceedings, nor does it relieve the defendants of their obligation to discover documents accessible to them. The Minister of Police is vicariously liable for the actions of SAPS members, and the defendants, as properly cited litigants, must comply with discovery obligations under Rule 35(3). The relevance of the documents sought is for the plaintiff to determine, and any objections to relevance can be a…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35
• Joinder And Non Joinder
• Vicarious Liability
• Fair Trial Rights

Idexis (Pty) Ltd t/a Sentra Pharmacy and Another v Novo Nordisk (Pty) Ltd (130119/2024)

Idexis (Pty) Ltd t/a Sentra Pharmacy and Another v Novo Nordisk (Pty) Ltd (130119/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 393 (8 April 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

130119/2024

Judge

Retief

The High Court dismissed an application to compel discovery under Uniform Rule 35, finding the notice defective, Rule 30A not properly invoked, and the case an abuse of process.

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Application
• Interim Interdict
• Abuse Of Process
• Discovery-procedure
• Rule-35

Reddy v Growthpoint Properties Limited (2018/45020)

Reddy v Growthpoint Properties Limited (2018/45020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 408 (27 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2018/45020

Judge

PJ Du Plessis

The court found that the first order compelling discovery and striking out the applicant's defence was erroneously granted. The respondent's application was premature, as discovery notices were served before the close of pleadings, and the applicant was not properly notified of the relief sought. The order did not comply with Rule 35(7) or the applicable practice directives, as it implemented a one-step strike-out process without allowing the applicant an opportunity to explain or seek condonation. The judge was not made aware of crucial facts, including the prematurity of the discovery notic…

Source excerpt

• Rescission Of Judgment
• Default Judgment
• Discovery Procedure
• Practice Directives
• Rule 42
• Rule 35

Crown Bishop Body Corporate v Astrodon (Pty) Ltd (057418/2024)

Crown Bishop Body Corporate v Astrodon (Pty) Ltd (057418/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 272 (14 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

057418/2024

Judge

N Ndlokovane

The High Court compelled the respondent to comply with a Rule 35(12) discovery notice, rejected a jurisdictional objection, and awarded costs.

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 12
• Costs Award
• Jurisdictional Challenge
• Discovery-procedure
• Rule-35-12

Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706)

Mampuru and Others v Bowman and Another (2024/008706) [2025] ZAGPJHC 212 (5 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2024/008706

Judge

Swanepoel

Review of an arbitration award dismissed. The court held there was no gross irregularity, and the arbitrator’s refusal of postponement did not justify setting aside the award.

• Arbitration Review
• Gross Irregularity
• Arbitration Act Section 33
• Postponement Discretion
• Discovery Procedure
• Arbitration-review

Cope and Another v Liversage (4151/2021)

Cope and Another v Liversage (4151/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 20 (5 March 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

4151/2021

Judge

Managa

The court held that Rule 35(14) is intended solely for the purpose of pleading, and once the applicants have filed their plea, they are precluded from relying on Rule 35(14) to compel discovery. The applicants' request for documents to amend their plea or formulate a counterclaim falls outside the scope of Rule 35(14) and amounts to a fishing expedition. The proper procedure for compelling compliance with Rule 35(14) is through Rule 30A, which was not followed. Regarding Rule 35(3), the court found that the applicants failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents to the issues…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Application
• Pleading Amendment
• Counterclaim
• Costs Order