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
Taskflow (Pty) Ltd v Aluxium (Pty) Ltd and Others (2021/40976) [2024] ZAGPPHC 857 (26 August 2024)
The court compelled discovery of software and source code in a copyright dispute, holding the requested materials relevant to the pleaded issues, subject to confidentiality.
Engaged Business Turnaround (Pty) Ltd and Another v CP Crane Hire (Pty) Ltd and Others (046219/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 817 (22 August 2024)
The court held that Rule 35(12) entitles a party to production of documents referenced in pleadings or affidavits, regardless of whether pleadings are closed or an answering affidavit has been filed. The applicants' objections regarding lateness, specificity, and relevance are unfounded, as Rule 35(12) does not require detailed reference or relevance as a limitation. The respondents raised a bona fide dispute regarding the reasonableness of the legal fees, and the documents sought are relevant to resolving this dispute. The remuneration agreement does not override the respondents' right to di…
Source excerpt
Vosloo N.O and Another v South African Medical Association NPC and Another (44983/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 372 (4 June 2021)
The court found that the First Respondent failed to lay a sufficient factual basis for the relevance of the reports requested under rule 35(12). Mere reference to the reports in the founding affidavit does not automatically entitle the First Respondent to discovery; the requesting party must identify aspects, issues, or possible grounds of opposition to which the documents might be relevant. The First Respondent's assertions were conclusionary and lacked detail as to how the reports would assist in its defence or relate to the grounds for winding-up. The Applicants' denial of relevance under…
Source excerpt
Contango Trading SA v Central Energy Fund SOC Ltd (533/2019) [2019] ZASCA 191; [2020] 1 All SA 613 (SCA); 2020 (3) SA 58 (SCA) (13 December 2019)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the references to a 'legal review' in the respondents' founding affidavit did not constitute references to a specific document as contemplated by Rule 35(12), but rather to a process. Therefore, the legal review was not liable to be disclosed. The court found that the KPMG and PwC reports were obtained for the purpose of understanding the financial consequences of the impugned contracts, not for legal advice or in contemplation of litigation, and thus did not meet the requirements for litigation privilege. Consequently, these reports must be disclosed. Re…
Source excerpt
Explore more
