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
E39 Dolphin Beach (Pty) Ltd and Another v Gnefkow and Others (15326/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 103 (12 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed an interlocutory application to compel document production under Rule 35(12), finding non-compliance with Rule 30A and no basis to order impossible production.
Naledi Local Municipality and Another v Makwati (354/2023) [2025] ZANWHC 28 (14 February 2025)
The court found that the first Rule 30 notice was filed outside the prescribed 10-day period and no condonation was sought, rendering it irregular and not properly before the court. Rule 30A does not apply to irregular steps where Rule 30 provides a specific remedy and timeframe. The respondent's notice of bar was declared an irregular step because it was issued while the first Rule 30 notice was pending and had not been adjudicated or withdrawn. The applicants were entitled to relief in the second Rule 30 application, but the court declined to strike out the respondent's claim in its entiret…
Source excerpt
Malebana v Road Accident Fund (27833/2016) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1353 (10 December 2024)
The High Court held that Uniform Rule 30A requires a two-step process: first seek compliance, then seek striking out only after non-compliance persists.
Nene v Auditor-General of South Africa and Others (6136/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1094 (25 October 2024)
The court found that the Auditor-General had complied with rule 53 by providing all documents that served before the decision-maker at the time of the impugned decisions. The applicant's request for additional documents was overbroad and sought materials extraneous to the record of proceedings. Discovery under rule 35 was premature as pleadings had not closed and relevance could not be properly assessed. Regarding the PAIA request, the applicant failed to exhaust internal remedies and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances to justify direct recourse to the court. Accordingly, the appli…
Source excerpt
Seeletso and Another v Ntefeng and Others (UM 170/23) [2023] ZANWHC 157 (6 September 2023)
The court dismissed a Rule 30/30A challenge to an urgent application, held those rules can apply in application proceedings, and set deadlines for further affidavits.
Tshenodi and Others v Road Accident Fund (2019/11156; 2020/05922; 2019/28478) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1487 (17 January 2023)
The court found that in all three matters, the respondent failed to comply with clear and specific court orders compelling procedural steps under the Uniform Rules, including arranging medico-legal examinations, delivering notices in terms of Rule 36, and attending pre-trial conferences. The respondent's reliance on Legaole Kagiso Sonnyboy v RAF was misplaced, as the facts were distinguishable and did not address the respondent's failure to comply with direct court orders. The court held that Rule 30A was applicable, as the orders were granted by the court and the respondent's non-compliance…
Source excerpt
National Pride (PTY) Ltd v Boss Foods CC (28717/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 708 (19 September 2022)
The High Court dismissed a defendant’s Rule 30 and 30A application in a procedural dispute over an amended exception and notice of exception.
Masange v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (41235/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 626 (15 August 2022)
The High Court granted leave to appeal against an interlocutory order under Rule 30A, finding another court might differ on appealability and document production issues.
Ingerop South Africa (PTY) Ltd v Sedibeng Water and Others (4343/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 100 (2 June 2022)
The High Court ordered compliance with a Rule 35(12) notice, holding that the applicant had not produced all referenced documents and that Rule 30A did not bar relief.
20Twenty Projects (Pty) Ltd v Tsantsabane Local Municipality (404/2016) [2022] ZANCHC 23 (22 April 2022)
The court found that the respondent failed to comply with its obligations to deliver a response to the Rule 37(4) notice and to provide its discovery affidavit as required by the Uniform Rules. The technical objections raised by the respondent regarding the authority of the applicant's attorney and the validity of the affidavit were without merit, as substantial compliance with the regulations governing affidavits was demonstrated. The respondent's argument regarding non-compliance with Rule 30A was rejected, as the applicant's conduct was consistent with the requirements of Rule 35(7). The r…
Source excerpt
Explore more
