South Africa Case Law

Protege Partners LP and Others v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Others (2019/5883)

Protege Partners LP and Others v Firstrand Bank Ltd and Others (2019/5883) [2019] ZAGPJHC 222 (16 July 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2019/5883

Judge

C G Lamont

The court found that the agreement sought by the applicants was irrelevant to the urgent application, as the proceeds in question arose from a separate ARCIL transaction and not from the agreement. The applicants did not require the agreement to address the urgency of the application, nor did they seek its production at the relevant hearing. The court held that Rule 35(12) does not compel production of documents that are irrelevant to the issues before the court. The applicants' attempt to obtain the agreement for use in foreign proceedings did not render it relevant to the present matter. Co…

Source excerpt

• Rule 35 12 Document Production
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Onus Of Production
• Costs Order

Kena Media (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, In Re: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Kena Media (Pty) Ltd (3703/2018)

Kena Media (Pty) Ltd v City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality, In Re: City of Johannesburg Metropolitan Municipality v Kena Media (Pty) Ltd (3703/2018) [2019] ZAGPJHC 208 (27 June 2019)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

3703/2018

Judge

Goodman

The court partially granted a Rule 35(12) application, ordering production of JC Decaux’s bid and lease agreement, but not the award letter.

• Rule 35 12 Document Production
• Municipal By Laws
• Heritage Site Regulation
• Standing To Sue
• Rule-35-12
• Document-production

ISP Cash Ekurhuleni (Pty) Ltd v ISP Cash (Pty) Ltd (52620/2015)

ISP Cash Ekurhuleni (Pty) Ltd v ISP Cash (Pty) Ltd (52620/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1144 (7 December 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

52620/2015

Judge

A. Maier-Frawley

The court found that the documents sought by the applicant under Rule 35(12) are relevant to the issues in the main winding-up application, as they pertain to the existence and nature of agreements and alleged misrepresentations central to the dispute. Confidentiality does not constitute privilege and cannot be used to refuse disclosure of relevant documents. The respondent failed to substantiate its claim of privilege and did not provide evidence of actual prejudice. The procedural requirements of Rule 30A were substantially complied with, as the respondent was afforded more than the require…

Source excerpt

• Rule 35 12 Document Production
• Rule 30a Non Compliance
• Winding Up Proceedings
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Confidentiality And Privilege

Mawenzi Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (18562/2015)

Mawenzi Management Services (Pty) Ltd and Others v The Commissioner for the South African Revenue Services (18562/2015) [2016] ZAGPJHC 410 (18 March 2016)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

18562/2015

Judge

Windell

The court held that Rule 35(12) only obliges production of documents expressly referred to in pleadings or affidavits, not those merely inferred or deduced. The applicants are not entitled to documents regarding the SARS deponent's authority or general information held by SARS, as these were not specifically referenced. However, where SARS referred to further claims against Mawela Properties in its affidavit without attaching supporting documents, the applicants are entitled to those documents. The court ordered SARS to produce the documents requested in paragraph 16 of the Rule 35(12) notice…

Source excerpt

• Rule 35 12 Document Production
• Tax Administration Act
• Liquidation Claims
• Authority Of Deponent

Enviroshore (Pty) Ltd v Energy Brokers (Pty) Ltd (28497/2013)

Enviroshore (Pty) Ltd v Energy Brokers (Pty) Ltd (28497/2013) [2014] ZAGPJHC 26 (5 March 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

28497/2013

Judge

FHD Van Oosten

The High Court compelled a respondent to comply with a Rule 35(12) notice for a meeting minute referred to in its affidavit, and ordered costs.

• Rule 35 12 Document Production
• Application To Compel
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Civil-procedure
• Discovery
• Rule-35-12

Malan v Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal and Others (29722/12)

Malan v Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal and Others (29722/12) [2014] ZAGPPHC 33 (16 January 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

29722/12

Judge

PZ Ebersohn

High Court review-related application compelling production of tribunal documents and notes needed for a pending Road Accident Fund review.

• Rule 35 12 Document Production
• Rule 53 Review Procedure
• Road Accident Fund Claims
• Tribunal Record Disclosure
• Rule-35-12-document-production
• Rule-53-review-procedure