South Africa Case Law

Gold Leaf Tobacco Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Sasfin Bank Ltd (2022/21063)

Gold Leaf Tobacco Corporation (Pty) Ltd v Sasfin Bank Ltd (2022/21063) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1299 (13 November 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/21063

Judge

Ian Green

The court held that Rule 35(12) can be invoked without prior leave under Rule 35(13), distinguishing the approach in Fourie N.O. as incorrect. However, the bank statements sought by Gold Leaf were either draft, unreliable, or still being reconstructed, and Sasfin expressly disavowed reliance on their accuracy. Such documents are not relevant for the purpose of Rule 35(12), which is to allow a party to consider its position in the main proceedings, not to circumvent substantive defences raised in the main application. Granting the application would effectively allow Gold Leaf to obtain substan…

Source excerpt

• Rule 35 Discovery
• Production Of Documents
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Discretion In Interlocutory Applications

Nethavhani v Nuwe SA Eiendomme en Verhuring CC and Others (20709/2022)

Nethavhani v Nuwe SA Eiendomme en Verhuring CC and Others (20709/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1213 (20 September 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20709/2022

Judge

Mooki

The High Court struck a Rule 35(6) application from the roll, finding the missing investment statements did not exist and making no costs order.

• Discovery Affidavit
• Rule 35 6
• Production Of Documents
• Costs Award
• Civil-procedure
• Discovery

Fourie N.O and Others v Bosch and Others (56027/2020)

Fourie N.O and Others v Bosch and Others (56027/2020) [2021] ZAGPPHC 553 (27 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

56027/2020

Judge

Mabuse

The High Court dismissed an interlocutory application to compel discovery in sequestration proceedings, holding that Rule 35(12) and 35(13) were not properly invoked.

• Discovery In Application Proceedings
• Uniform Rule 35
• Production Of Documents
• Points In Limine
• Costs Order
• Civil-procedure

Badi and Another v East Cape Cycling and Others (3452/2018)

Badi and Another v East Cape Cycling and Others (3452/2018) [2019] ZAECPEHC 82 (5 November 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

3452/2018

Judge

N P Jaji

The court found that respondents failed to dispatch a complete record as required by Rule 53(1)(b), including audio recordings and other relevant documents. The tender to make documents available at attorneys' offices did not comply with the Rule, which requires dispatch to the registrar. The filing of the answering affidavit before dispatching the full record was irregular and prejudicial to the applicants, as it impeded their right to supplement their founding affidavit and construct a proper record for review. No proper condonation application was made for the late filing of the answering…

Source excerpt

• Rule 53 Record
• Review Of Tribunal Decision
• Condonation
• Irregular Step
• Production Of Documents

Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (CC82/2017)

Uzani Environmental Advocacy CC v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (CC82/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 749 (14 November 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

CC82/2017

Judge

Spilg

The court held that BP was not entitled to plead to the charges at the hearing of 13 November 2017 because Uzani had not yet finalized the indictment and reasonable notice had not been given in light of BP's special pleas. The sequence of procedural steps must commence with Uzani delivering a final amended indictment, followed by the hearing of BP's application to compel documents, and only thereafter may BP object to the charges or plead. The court ruled that the application to compel documents should be dealt with in the same manner as the delivery of particulars under section 87 of the Cri…

Source excerpt

• Private Prosecution Under Nema
• Withdrawal Of Charges
• Costs Awards
• Special Pleas
• Fair Trial Rights
• Production Of Documents

Astral Operations Ltd t/a County Fair Foods and Others v Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (W Cape) and Others (3509/2014)

Astral Operations Ltd t/a County Fair Foods and Others v Minister for Local Government, Environmental Affairs and Development Planning (W Cape) and Others (3509/2014) [2017] ZAWCHC 114; 2019 (3) SA 189 (WCC) (11 October 2017)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3509/2014

Judge

Binns-Ward

The High Court held that a disputed memorandum was protected by legal professional privilege and that no waiver had been shown. The application to compel production was dismissed.

• Legal Professional Privilege
• Litigation Privilege
• Waiver Of Privilege
• Judicial Review
• Production Of Documents
• Legal-professional-privilege

Potch Boudienste CC v Firstrand Bank Limited (23898/15)

Potch Boudienste CC v Firstrand Bank Limited (23898/15) [2016] ZAGPPHC 335 (25 April 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

23898/15

Judge

Tuchten

The court held that the applicant had not delivered an answering affidavit, and thus the issues in the main liquidation application were not yet identified. Without a comprehensive statement of defences, the court could not assess the bona fides or necessity of the requested discovery. The court found that most requests related to processes rather than specific documents, and that several documents had already been provided. The court declined to exercise its discretion to order production under rules 35(12), 35(14), or 35(11), finding no exceptional circumstances and no obligation to produce…

Source excerpt

• Discovery In Motion Proceedings
• Rule 35 Application
• Production Of Documents
• Liquidation Proceedings
• Close Corporations Act
• Costs Orders

Body Corporate of the Delfora Scheme N.O SS 117/1984 v H & M Property Management (34270/2014)

Body Corporate of the Delfora Scheme N.O SS 117/1984 v H & M Property Management (34270/2014) [2016] ZAGPJHC 44 (8 March 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

34270/2014

Judge

A A Crutchfield

The court ordered production of complete unredacted bank statements under Rule 35(12), rejecting confidentiality and relevance objections, and awarded attorney-and-client costs.

• Rule 35 Discovery
• Production Of Documents
• Confidentiality Of Documents
• Rule-35-12
• Production-of-documents
• Confidentiality-of-documents

Nedbank Limited v Jordaan N.O (16335/2014)

Nedbank Limited v Jordaan N.O (16335/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 867 (6 November 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

16335/2014

Judge

A.M.L. Phatudi

The High Court dismissed an application to compel production under Rule 35(12), holding the rule does not extend to annexures merely because they are attached.

• Rule 35 Discovery
• Production Of Documents
• Costs Award
• Civil-procedure
• Discovery
• Production-of-documents

S v Krejcir and Others (SS26-2014)

S v Krejcir and Others (SS26-2014) [2014] ZAGPJHC 454 (13 October 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

SS26-2014

Judge

Lamont

The court held that subpoenas issued by accused 1 were irregular and unlawful because they failed to give notice to persons with a legal interest in the documents.

• Subpoena Procedure
• Notice To Interested Parties
• Privacy Rights
• Production Of Documents
• Constitutional Compliance
• Subpoena-procedure