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
Tuswa v Minister of Police and Another (2014/44510) [2025] ZAGPJHC 507 (22 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a defence, finding the respondent had complied with Rule 35(3) by swearing the requested SAP 15 document did not exist.
Du Toit and Another v Lee and Others (6331/2022) [2024] ZAFSHC 396 (19 December 2024)
The High Court suspended handing down judgment in the main application until an interlocutory application to adduce further evidence is decided.
Geronimos Investments CC t/a Buffalo Flats Spar v Members of the Executive Council for the Department of Health Province of the Eastern Cape (230/2011) [2024] ZAECBHC 23 (3 September 2024)
The High Court granted condonation for late answering affidavits in interlocutory rule 30 and rule 30A applications, finding the 38-day delay not excessive.
Johannesburg Road Agency (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ramashu and Others (2022/055971) [2024] ZAGPJHC 205 (1 March 2024)
The court found that the applicants' requests for documents under Rule 35(12) were not supported by references in the answering affidavit. Many of the documents sought were not mentioned or were the subject of oral agreements, and the first respondent had already provided those documents that were referred to. The applicants' notice amounted to interrogatories and requests for further and better particulars, which fall outside the scope of Rule 35(12). The court held that it would not go behind the first respondent's discovery affidavit except in exceptional circumstances, which were not pres…
Source excerpt
Joubert v South African Legal Practice Council (5220/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 374 (22 September 2023)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal with costs, finding no reasonable prospects of success in a dispute over authority, Rule 7, and Rule 30 issues.
Amalgamated Beverage Industries v Mkhondo Transport CC t/a MLP Tembisa North and Another (31092/14) [2023] ZAGPPHC 616 (2 August 2023)
The High Court compelled further discovery under Rule 35(3), holding that a party must state where requested documents are, or clearly say it does not know.
Pillay v Body Corporate of Dumbarton Oaks (2021/11082) [2023] ZAGPJHC 647 (6 June 2023)
The High Court dismissed a review of a Taxing Master’s costs ruling, holding that costs for a condonation application were properly included as part of the urgent application.
Deschaney Investments (Pty) Ltd v Ardain Commercial CC (1307/2021) [2023] ZAKZDHC 29 (31 May 2023)
The court found that the applicant failed to provide a reasonable and satisfactory explanation for the late filing of the notice to strike out. The mutual relaxation of timeframes between the parties does not override the mandatory requirements of the court's rules. The court emphasized that parties must comply with the rules once litigation is before the court, and private arrangements cannot substitute for procedural compliance. The interlocutory application was deemed to amount to piecemeal litigation, as the issue of irrelevance could be raised during the main trial. The applicant did not…
Source excerpt
Transnet Soc Limited T/A Transnet Freigth Rail v Tanker Services Fuel And Gas (Pty) Ltd (33982/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 199 (6 March 2023)
The High Court dismissed an interlocutory application to compel discovery and further particulars against a non-existent second defendant, reserving costs for trial.
Kajee v Special Investigating Unit and Others (GP22/2021) [2022] ZAST 21 (16 September 2022)
The applicant failed to make out a proper case for compelling the respondents to produce the documents and recordings listed as items 1, 3, and 7 in his Uniform Rule 35(14) notice. The respondents complied with their obligations under Rule 35(14) by providing an affidavit confirming the briefs were not in their possession and by supplying extensive payment bundles and relevant documents. The applicant's request for unspecified documents and bank statements was legally incompetent, as the documents sought were either not in the respondents' possession or irrelevant for the purpose of pleading.…
Source excerpt
Explore more
