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
Kukard N.O and Others v ABSA Bank Limited and Others (115284/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1089 (23 October 2024)
The High Court upheld exceptions to the plaintiffs’ particulars of claim, found the pleading lacked necessary averments, and dismissed the early discovery application.
Air and Allied Techologies CC and Others v Advanced Air Control Technologies (Pty) Ltd and Another (25911/2017) [2020] ZAGPJHC 71 (28 February 2020)
The court set aside an ex parte Anton Piller order, finding no strong prima facie case, no vital evidence showing, and an impermissible use for early discovery.
Mahaeene and Another v Anglogold Ashanti Ltd (2014/12111) [2015] ZAGPJHC 344; [2016] 1 All SA 592 (GJ) (6 October 2015)
Section 7(1) of PAIA applies to the applicants' request because, although they are not cited parties in the certification application, their membership in the class sought to be certified makes them interested parties in the proceedings. The concept of 'party' in section 7(1) is not limited to formally cited litigants but extends to class members in certification proceedings. The term 'proceedings' in section 7(1) encompasses all litigious steps, including pre-summons applications such as class action certification. The applicants do not reasonably require the requested information for legal…
Source excerpt
Capricorn Makelaars (EDMS) BPK and others v EB Shelf Investment No 79 (Pty) Ltd and others (ECJ 050/2005) [2005] ZAECHC 25 (10 June 2005)
The court held that rule 35(14) does not require strict necessity for discovery, but rather that the documents must be reasonably required in the circumstances for the purposes of pleading. The defendants demonstrated a substantial advantage and element of need for the invoices, which were clearly specified and relevant to anticipated issues of ownership and value. The court rejected a restrictive historical approach and interpreted the rule in light of constitutional rights to access information, finding no compelling reason to protect privacy interests beyond the limits of the rule. The app…
Source excerpt
Explore more
