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
Zungane v Road Accident Fund (84985/17; 80916/15; 63951/21; 18482/22; 9321/22; 33973/21; 39494/2021) [2025] ZAGPPHC 694 (1 July 2025)
The court dismissed multiple RAF interlocutory applications as abusive attempts to convert trial matters into default judgments.
Gordon v Dickson and Others (2023/022277) [2025] ZAGPJHC 505 (26 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 33(4) separation application but granted discovery, holding the valuation issues were not suitably separable from the main claim.
Kunsani v Minister of Police and Others (3635/2022) [2025] ZAECMHC 34 (6 May 2025)
The court found that the defendants' arguments regarding misjoinder and non-joinder of IPID were without merit. IPID's independent investigative role does not make it a necessary party to the proceedings, nor does it relieve the defendants of their obligation to discover documents accessible to them. The Minister of Police is vicariously liable for the actions of SAPS members, and the defendants, as properly cited litigants, must comply with discovery obligations under Rule 35(3). The relevance of the documents sought is for the plaintiff to determine, and any objections to relevance can be a…
Source excerpt
N.B v R.B (38752/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 523 (29 April 2025)
The High Court compelled discovery under rule 35(7), rejecting a respondent’s attempt to withhold discovery pending an unfiled R100 000 payment claim.
Reddy v Growthpoint Properties Limited (2018/45020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 408 (27 March 2025)
The court found that the first order compelling discovery and striking out the applicant's defence was erroneously granted. The respondent's application was premature, as discovery notices were served before the close of pleadings, and the applicant was not properly notified of the relief sought. The order did not comply with Rule 35(7) or the applicable practice directives, as it implemented a one-step strike-out process without allowing the applicant an opportunity to explain or seek condonation. The judge was not made aware of crucial facts, including the prematurity of the discovery notic…
Source excerpt
Buffelsdrift Wild and Nature Reserve (Pty) Ltd v Magalies Water Board (44776/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 693 (16 July 2024)
High Court discovery ruling in a water-supply dispute. The court granted condonation and ordered further discovery after finding the refusal to disclose documents unsustainable.
Channon v Monama and Others (64482/2020) [2024] ZAGPPHC 546 (13 June 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel further discovery under Rule 35(3), finding the respondents had already responded and the applicant sought better discovery.
ALFS Tippers CC v Baloyi and Others (2020/19556) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1177 (27 September 2023)
The court held that the obligation to discover under Rule 35 is not limited to personal possession but extends to documents under a party's control or power. Mapasa, as CEO of Basil Read, has access and control over the requested documents and is therefore obliged to discover them. The remaining respondents failed to comply with Rule 35(1) by not delivering proper discovery affidavits, and their reliance on a narrow interpretation of 'possession' was rejected. The court found that the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute and that discovery is necessary for a fair hearing. Th…
Source excerpt
Elecmec Transmissions CC v Maluma Farming Enterprise 1938 (Pty) Ltd; In re: Enig (Pty) Ltd and Another v Elemec Transmissions CC (4750/2017) [2023] ZALMPPHC 12 (16 March 2023)
The application to strike out the Respondent's claim was dismissed because the Applicant failed to prove non-compliance with the court order. The court found that the order had not been served on the Respondent, and therefore the time for compliance had not commenced. The Respondent had complied with the order to the extent possible, and the Applicant failed to demonstrate any prejudice in the conduct of its defence. The court exercised its discretion under Rule 35(7) and held that the application was premature and unnecessary. The drastic remedy of striking out a claim is only justified in c…
Source excerpt
Stapelberg Vervoer CC t/a Mill Trans v Nordicbau Master Builder & Renovator CC (601/2017) [2022] ZAECQBHC 39 (1 November 2022)
The court found that the applicant is entitled to the requested further particulars and discovery, subject to reasonable limitations on the time periods covered. The respondent failed to provide any cogent reason for refusing the requests, and the information sought is relevant to the issues in dispute, particularly the calculation of loss of income and the ability to test the respondent's expert evidence. The court emphasized that parties should be given reasonable leeway to prove or disprove claims and that objections based solely on allegations of fishing expeditions are insufficient. The…
Source excerpt
Explore more
