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
Botha v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (2021/17543) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1118 (1 November 2024)
The High Court held that Rule 35(12) could be used in motion proceedings without prior Rule 35(13) directions, but dismissed both the Rule 30 and compel applications.
Wozani Berg Gasoline (Pty) Ltd v Mkhondo Oil and Diesel (Pty) Ltd (48/2019) [2024] ZAMPMBHC 34 (9 May 2024)
The court dismissed an application for further particulars but granted an application to compel further discovery in a commercial fuel-payment dispute.
Editor-In-Chief of the Star Newspaper and Others v Mbiza [2023] ZAGPPHC 514; 95282/2016 (30 June 2023)
The High Court compelled discovery in a defamation dispute, finding the plaintiff’s response inadequate because he did not unequivocally address possession of relevant documents.
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Pretorius and Others (5268/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 59 (23 February 2023)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 35(14) application to compel discovery, holding the requested documents were sought to explore a possible counterclaim, not for pleading.
Morena v Minister of Safety and Security and Another (28153/2009) [2023] ZAGPPHC 7 (9 January 2023)
The court dismissed an application to compel discovery of a police docket, finding the applicant had not adequately proven relevance or the need for relief.
Waterkloof Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Others v Van Tonder N.O. and Others (4975/2020) [2022] ZAFSHC 329 (24 November 2022)
The court found that the documents requested by the applicants in paragraphs 2 to 8 of the Rule 35(3) notice are relevant and necessary for the fair disposal of the main matter, as they pertain to the alleged joint venture and sale of property central to the dispute. The respondents' objections based on the POPI Act were abandoned, and their arguments regarding irrelevance were not persuasive given the pleadings. The court accepted the applicants' concessions regarding the scope of bank statements, WhatsApp messages, and the exclusion of certain documents. The respondents cannot be compelled…
Source excerpt
Imperatech Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Columbus Consulting (Pty) Ltd (26465/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 696 (26 September 2022)
The court dismissed an application to compel discovery, finding the requested documents were not described with sufficient accuracy and lacked proven relevance.
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
Zulu v Red Ant Security Relocation and Eviction Services (Pty) Ltd (10953/18) [2021] ZAGPPHC 261 (23 April 2021)
The High Court granted an application to compel further discovery under Rule 35(3), rejecting the respondent’s relevance objection and ordering costs.
Democratic Alliance and Others v Mkhwebane and Another (1370/2019) [2021] ZASCA 18; [2021] 2 All SA 337 (SCA); 2021 (3) SA 403 (SCA) (11 March 2021)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 35(12) applies to documents referred to in affidavits and annexures, provided they are relevant, not privileged, and in the possession of the party. The application for the SSA Analyst post was clearly referenced in the annexure 'PPSA5' and was material to the timeline and facts at issue in the defamation claim. The respondent's denial of reference and relevance was rejected. The court clarified that relevance under Rule 35(12) is broader than under conventional discovery rules and is assessed in relation to issues that might arise, not only those cr…
Source excerpt
Explore more
