South Africa Case Law

Claassen and Others v Frame (2023/006221)

Claassen and Others v Frame (2023/006221) [2025] ZAGPJHC 705 (21 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/006221

Judge

M V Noko

The application to set aside the subpoena fails because Rule 38 and section 35 of the Superior Courts Act permit the issuance of subpoenas for documents relevant to proceedings, regardless of whether the subpoenaed person is to be called as a witness. The applicant's argument that a trial date must be set before a subpoena is issued is unfounded. The documents requested are relevant to the determination of the accrual in the divorce proceedings, and the applicant did not claim privilege or confidentiality over them. The contention of abuse of process is unsupported, as the subpoena was issued…

Source excerpt

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Accrual System
• Abuse Of Process
• Privilege And Confidentiality

Papadimos and Another v Old Mutual Property Proprietary Limited and Others (10395/2020)

Papadimos and Another v Old Mutual Property Proprietary Limited and Others (10395/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 254 (20 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10395/2020

Judge

Slingers

The High Court dismissed an application to compel discovery, finding the requests too broad and unsupported by specific relevance to the pleaded issues.

• Discovery Under Uniform Rule 35
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Confidential Information
• Legal Duty In Delict
• Abuse Of Process
• Discovery-under-uniform-rule-35

Howe v Platform 45 (Pty) Ltd (13158/2022)

Howe v Platform 45 (Pty) Ltd (13158/2022) [2025] ZAGPJHC 409 (29 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13158/2022

Judge

Minnaar

The High Court granted a partial Rule 35(7) discovery order in a contract valuation dispute, requiring production of valuation and financial documents but rejecting vague or overbroad requests.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Contractual Entitlement
• Rectification Of Contract
• Valuation Of Shares
• Rule-35-discovery

Spectrum Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Karoo Treats CC t/a JFM Logistics (1447/2022)

Spectrum Logistics (Pty) Ltd v Karoo Treats CC t/a JFM Logistics (1447/2022) [2025] ZAECQBHC 3 (18 February 2025)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Gqeberha

Case number

1447/2022

Judge

Ronaasen

The court dismissed a discovery and further-particulars application, finding the requested documents vague, overbroad, and not shown to be relevant or strictly necessary.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Further Particulars
• Uniform Rule 35
• Uniform Rule 21
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Discovery-of-documents

Mphatlane N.O and Others v Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (017896/2022)

Mphatlane N.O and Others v Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (017896/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

017896/2022

Judge

E M Kubushi

The High Court granted a rule 35(7) application compelling discovery of relevant documents in a share transfer and director removal dispute.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Rule 35 Application
• Share Transfer Dispute
• Director Removal
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Civil-procedure

Discovery Life Limited v Pranpath (07606/2021)

Discovery Life Limited v Pranpath (07606/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 82 (1 November 2024)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

07606/2021

Judge

Annandale

The court ordered discovery of financial and corporate documents relevant to an insurer’s claim that disability benefits were wrongly paid.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Rule 35 Application
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Corporate Entity Financials
• Insurance Claim Recovery
• Costs Orders

Gerber v Boyle and Another (2022/034505)

Gerber v Boyle and Another (2022/034505) [2024] ZAGPJHC 946 (20 September 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/034505

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The High Court granted an application compelling further discovery under Rule 35(3), rejecting the defendant’s claim that the request was an abuse of process.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Rule 35 Application
• Abuse Of Process
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Discovery-of-documents
• Rule-35-3

Batjes v Oppermangronde Communal Property Association (2025/2023)

Batjes v Oppermangronde Communal Property Association (2025/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 293 (19 September 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2025/2023

Judge

Gusha, AJ

The court found that the applicant's request for further discovery was overly broad and lacked specificity, amounting to a fishing expedition rather than a legitimate application for relevant documents. The dispute in the main action relates to the alleged breach of a lease agreement and termination of membership, and the applicant is either already in possession of the necessary documents or they have been discovered. Relevance must be determined by reference to the pleadings, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that the requested documents are relevant to any matter in question. Consequ…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Communal Property Associations Act
• Eviction Proceedings

Moolman v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA98/22)

Moolman v Commission For Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration and Others (JA98/22) [2024] ZALCJHB 339 (22 August 2024)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

JA98/22

Judges

Molahlehi, Nkutha-Nkontwana, Jolwana

The Labour Appeal Court set aside an early review of a CCMA disclosure ruling, holding that the Labour Court should not have intervened in incomplete arbitration.

• Disclosure Of Documents
• Review Of Interlocutory Rulings
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Fixed Term Contracts
• Reasonable Expectation Of Renewal
• Ccma-discovery

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others v Capm Tau Mine (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/067518)

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others v Capm Tau Mine (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/067518) [2024] ZAGPJHC 422 (2 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/067518

Judge

A W Pullinger

High Court refused to set aside subpoenas duces tecum issued in arbitration, holding the requested documents were relevant and not abusive.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Abuse Of Process
• Discovery Procedure
• Specific Performance
• Fraudulent Non Disclosure