South Africa Case Law

ALFS Tippers CC v Baloyi and Others (19556/2020)

ALFS Tippers CC v Baloyi and Others (19556/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1393 (30 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19556/2020

Judge

Ternent AJ

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against an order compelling Rule 35(3) discovery from a CEO of a company in business rescue, finding no reasonable prospects.

• Discovery Under Rule 35
• Leave To Appeal
• Business Rescue
• Possession And Control Of Documents
• Leave-to-appeal
• Rule-35-discovery

Makate v Joosub NO and Another (57882/19)

Makate v Joosub NO and Another (57882/19) [2020] ZAGPPHC 248 (30 June 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

57882/19

Judge

Kollapen

The High Court partly granted discovery in a Rule 53 review over Makate’s compensation dispute, ordering disclosure of specified VAS contracts, revenue data, and part of a KPMG report.

• Rule 53 Review
• Discovery Under Rule 35
• Contractual Compensation
• Benchmarking Of Service Provider Contracts
• Confidentiality Regime
• Revenue Share Calculation

Portion 292, Waterval Developments (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (26092/2016)

Portion 292, Waterval Developments (Pty) Ltd v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service and Another (26092/2016) [2017] ZAGPPHC 629 (2 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

26092/2016

Judge

G Rautenbach

High Court interlocutory ruling on Rule 35(12) discovery in a tax dispute, ordering disclosure of one memorandum but refusing production of other requested documents.

• Discovery Under Rule 35
• Privilege
• Tax Court Appeal Documents
• Rule-35-12-discovery
• Legal-privilege
• Tax-litigation

Mokoena NO and Others v Bopa-Lesedi Development (Pty) Ltd (6202/2010)

Mokoena NO and Others v Bopa-Lesedi Development (Pty) Ltd (6202/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 73 (5 May 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6202/2010

Judge

C.H.G. van der Merwe

Provisional liquidation was sought on just and equitable grounds, but the court referred a factual dispute to oral evidence on whether the third applicant wrongfully triggered a BEE audit.

• Just And Equitable Winding Up
• Deadlock Principle
• Minority Shareholder Rights
• Oral Evidence Referral
• Discovery Under Rule 35
• Just-and-equitable-winding-up

Crawford-Browne v Manuel and Another (7390/2008)

Crawford-Browne v Manuel and Another (7390/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 29 (2 June 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7390/2008

Judge

Dlodlo

The court found that the respondents had complied with the March 2003 discovery order by filing an affidavit of compliance and providing the relevant documents, including the Affordability Report. The application was brought five years after the order, with no satisfactory explanation for the delay, and the urgency was self-created. The main review application to which the discovery order related had been finalized, rendering the interlocutory order unenforceable. The applicant failed to establish any deliberate or mala fide breach of the order by the respondents, and the second respondent wa…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Under Rule 35
• Contempt Of Court
• Interlocutory Orders
• Abuse Of Process