South Africa Case Law

Harding v Sweet Sensations 210 Pty Ltd t/a Moorgas & Sons and Another (1849/2024)

Harding v Sweet Sensations 210 Pty Ltd t/a Moorgas & Sons and Another (1849/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 163 (11 April 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1849/2024

Judge

Parker AJ

The court held that the applicant, as a 50% shareholder and director, is entitled to the documents referenced in the first respondent's particulars of claim under Rule 35(12). Annexures to pleadings are considered part of the pleadings and thus subject to discovery. The respondent's objections based on confidentiality and relevance were dismissed, as the statutory right to access company information under section 31(1)(b) of the Companies Act is unqualified and not dependent on the shareholder's involvement in daily operations. The court found that Rule 35(12) was the correct mechanism for th…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Shareholder Rights
• Rule 35 12
• Companies Act Section 31
• Confidentiality In Discovery

Crown Bishop Body Corporate v Astrodon (Pty) Ltd (057418/2024)

Crown Bishop Body Corporate v Astrodon (Pty) Ltd (057418/2024) [2025] ZAGPJHC 272 (14 March 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

057418/2024

Judge

N Ndlokovane

The High Court compelled the respondent to comply with a Rule 35(12) discovery notice, rejected a jurisdictional objection, and awarded costs.

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 12
• Costs Award
• Jurisdictional Challenge
• Discovery-procedure
• Rule-35-12

Johannesburg Road Agency (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ramashu and Others (2022/055971)

Johannesburg Road Agency (Pty) Ltd and Another v Ramashu and Others (2022/055971) [2024] ZAGPJHC 205 (1 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/055971

Judge

Moorcroft

The court found that the applicants' requests for documents under Rule 35(12) were not supported by references in the answering affidavit. Many of the documents sought were not mentioned or were the subject of oral agreements, and the first respondent had already provided those documents that were referred to. The applicants' notice amounted to interrogatories and requests for further and better particulars, which fall outside the scope of Rule 35(12). The court held that it would not go behind the first respondent's discovery affidavit except in exceptional circumstances, which were not pres…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Uniform Rules Of Court
• Rule 35 12
• Interlocutory Application
• Costs Orders

United States Polo Association v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (48200/18)

United States Polo Association v LA Group (Pty) Ltd and Another (48200/18) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1139 (28 August 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

48200/18

Judge

P A Van Niekerk

The court found that paragraph 5.1.7 of the Kabini affidavit, when read in context with the Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, refers directly to an 'agreement' or 'valid compromise' between LA Group and Ralph Lauren. The SCA judgment itself refers to such an agreement, and it is highly improbable that such a compromise between major parties would not be reduced to writing. LA Group did not deny the existence of a written agreement. The reference in the affidavit, together with the SCA judgment, satisfies the requirement of a reference to a document under Rule 35(12). Furthermore, the agreemen…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Trade Mark Opposition
• Trade Mark Cancellation
• Rule 35 12
• Relevance Of Evidence

Doola v Firtsrand Bank Ltd trading inter alia as RNB Private Bank and as FNB (2020/13723)

Doola v Firtsrand Bank Ltd trading inter alia as RNB Private Bank and as FNB (2020/13723) [2022] ZAGPJHC 837 (27 October 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2020/13723

Judge

Moorcroft

The court held that Rule 35(12) requires discovery only of documents referred to in pleadings or affidavits that are relevant to the dispute, not privileged, and in the possession of the party. The applicant's broad demand for documents, including those not referred to or irrelevant, was not supported by the rule. The application to strike out portions of the respondent's affidavit was dismissed as the paragraphs were relevant and no prejudice was alleged or shown. The applicant's conduct in persisting with inappropriate discovery requests and disputing the authority of the deponent without b…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Rule 35 12
• Striking Out Irrelevant Matter
• Costs Punitive Scale

Evrigard (PTY) Ltd and Another v Select PPE (PTY) Ltd and Others (2021/21896)

Evrigard (PTY) Ltd and Another v Select PPE (PTY) Ltd and Others (2021/21896) [2022] ZAGPJHC 653 (7 September 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2021/21896

Judge

Swanepoel

The High Court held that rule 35(12) may be used in motion proceedings without prior leave, and dismissed rule 30 applications to set aside the notices with costs.

• Discovery In Motion Proceedings
• Rule 35 12
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Lis Pendens
• Affidavit Document Reference
• Rule-35-12

Ingerop South Africa (PTY) Ltd v Sedibeng Water and Others (4343/2021)

Ingerop South Africa (PTY) Ltd v Sedibeng Water and Others (4343/2021) [2022] ZAFSHC 100 (2 June 2022)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4343/2021

Judge

Chesiwe

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.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Rule 35 12
• Rule 30a Non Compliance
• Points In Limine
• Costs Award
• Rule-35-12

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited v Novus Holdings Limited (219/2021)

Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited v Novus Holdings Limited (219/2021) [2022] ZASCA 24; [2022] 2 All SA 299 (SCA) (9 March 2022)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

219/2021

Judges

Petse, Molemela, Plasket, Hughes, Unterhalter

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that documents referenced in Novus’s affidavit had to be produced under rule 35(12), including the section 165(4) report, subject to confidentiality limits.

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 12
• Confidentiality Regime
• Litigation Privilege
• Companies Act Section 165
• Derivative Actions

Morakaladi and Others v Bakone ba Masha Mokopole Communal Property Association and Others (2854/2020)

Morakaladi and Others v Bakone ba Masha Mokopole Communal Property Association and Others (2854/2020) [2021] ZALMPPHC 67 (4 October 2021)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2854/2020

Judge

Kganyago

The High Court ordered discovery under Rule 35(12), holding that a party may seek documents referred to in affidavits before hearing, even after filing an answering affidavit.

• Discovery
• Rule 35 12
• Interdict Application
• Supplementary Affidavit
• Costs Order
• Civil-procedure

Botes and Another v Botes (85540/17)

Botes and Another v Botes (85540/17) [2020] ZAGPPHC 781 (31 December 2020)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

85540/17

Judge

N V Khumalo

The High Court dismissed a Rule 30A application to compel further discovery under Rule 35(12), holding that many requested documents were not specifically referred to in the affidavit.

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 12
• Close Corporation Act
• Liquidation Application
• Costs Order
• Rule-35-12