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
Motshele v Motshele (32777/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 274 (17 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a respondent’s claim and defence for non-compliance with a prior court order, but ordered costs on an attorney-and-client scale.
M.Z.M obo B.R.M v Khanyisa Mogale Attorneys (CIV APP MG06/22) [2024] ZANWHC 171 (4 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 30 and 30A challenge to an alleged irregular step, holding the application lacked merit and awarding costs in the appeal.
N.Z.M v Road Accident Fund (13281/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 444 (16 May 2024)
The court found that Rule 37(2)(b) does not impose any obligation on the defendant to nominate a date, time or place for a pre-trial conference, and therefore an order to compel such action is not competent under Rule 30A(1)(a). The correct procedure in cases of non-engagement is for the plaintiff to submit the matter to the Registrar under Rule 37(3)(b), who will then decide the date, time and place for the pre-trial conference. The court disagreed with the contrary interpretation adopted in Hamufari v Road Accident Fund and the Johannesburg practice directive, holding that the rules, not th…
Source excerpt
Compensation Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Compensation Commissioner and Another (69944/2019) [2022] ZAGPPHC 720 (26 September 2022)
The court dismissed a default judgment application, holding that an exception delivered in response to a notice of bar prevented the plaintiff from obtaining default judgment.
M and M Quantity Surveyors CC v Orvall Corporate Designs (Pty) Ltd (84202/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 343 (27 May 2021)
The court dismissed both a default judgment application and a defendant’s Rule 30/30A application, finding the Rule 30 notice out of time and refusing judgment.
Botha v 4D Health (Pty) Limited (2019/18976) [2020] ZAGPPHC 268 (15 June 2020)
High Court application to compel production of documents referenced in an expert report. The court ordered inspection under Rule 35(12) and costs against the respondent.
AR Controls (Pty) Ltd v Bray Controls Africa (Pty) Ltd (40571/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 414 (8 October 2019)
Application to compel production of documents under Rule 35(12) was dismissed after the court found the respondent had not shown sufficient need or prejudice.
Royal Entertainment Internet Entre/Cafe v Vakani Gaming North West (Pty) Ltd (M544/2017) [2019] ZANWHC 5 (21 February 2019)
The court dismissed a Rule 30A application to compel further discovery, holding that the respondent had complied with Rule 35(12) and that the sought documents were irrelevant.
Scormin (Pty) Limited and Another v New Venture Mining Investment Holdings (Pty) Limited and Others (M490/2017) [2018] ZANWHC 16 (21 June 2018)
The court held that the respondents are only entitled to documents specifically referred to in the applicants' founding affidavit or annexures, as required by Rule 35(12). Requests for proof of payment and other financial documents were found to be requests for further particulars, not discovery, as no specific documents were referenced. The only document the respondents were entitled to inspect was the Umbrella Amendment Termination Agreement, which was referenced in the Scormin Subscription Agreement annexed to the founding affidavit. The applicants failed to allege that the document was pr…
Source excerpt
Mahlatsi and Another v Kelbrick and Others (96026/2016) [2018] ZAGPPHC 324 (4 May 2018)
Rule 30A application failed after the court found the papers poorly drafted and the relief unclear, with costs awarded against the applicants.
Explore more
