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
Kgamanyane and Another v ABSA Bank Limited (15497/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 68 (29 January 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel mortgage bond statements under Rule 35(14), holding the documents were no longer needed for pleading once the defendants had pleaded.
SB Guarantee Co (RF) (Pty) Ltd v Malope (3607/2020) [2023] ZAGPJHC 888 (8 August 2023)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 35(14) application to compel further discovery, finding the requested proof of payments was not relevant for pleading.
ALG Boerdery (Pty) Ltd and Another v Van Heerden and Others (2699/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 145 (14 June 2023)
The court found that the documents requested by the respondents under rule 35(14) are neither essential nor material to the determination of the issues in the main application, which concern the validity of the appointment of a director, the business rescue resolution, and the appointment of the business rescue practitioner. The documents sought post-date the impugned events and cannot be relevant to their determination. Discovery in motion proceedings is exceptional and should only be granted where the documents are necessary for the fair determination of the case. The respondents' attempt t…
Source excerpt
Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Pretorius and Others (5268/2019) [2023] ZAFSHC 59 (23 February 2023)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 35(14) application to compel discovery, holding the requested documents were sought to explore a possible counterclaim, not for pleading.
Moroka v Keliana Management Company (43345/2018) [2021] ZAGPJHC 608 (3 November 2021)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel discovery under rule 35(14), holding the requested invoices were not shown to be reasonably required for pleading.
Mulaudzi v Platinum Health Medical Scheme (6860/2018) [2021] ZALMPPHC 16 (4 May 2021)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 35(14) application to compel pre-plea document disclosure, finding the applicant could plead using information already provided.
Steynol (Pty)Ltd v Obvious Choice Investments 5 (Pty)Ltd and Another (39597/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 803 (7 September 2016)
The court found that the first respondent failed to identify a reasonably anticipated issue in the main application to which the requested documents would be relevant. The main application concerns an interdict against unlawful activities, not an eviction or disputes over shareholding. The documents sought by the first respondent are not essential for preparing an answering affidavit to the relief claimed. The court agreed with the applicant that further disputes between the parties are not relevant to the present application. Accordingly, the requirements of rule 35(14) were not satisfied, a…
Source excerpt
Samuel v Gosai and Another (10732/2013) [2015] ZAKZDHC 2 (22 January 2015)
The court found that the first defendant failed to demonstrate that the plaintiff's bank statements were reasonably required or essential for the purposes of pleading. The first defendant could raise any defence, including locus standi, without access to the bank statements, and the onus to prove the claim remains on the plaintiff. The application was deemed a fishing expedition, contrary to the limited purpose of Rule 35(14), which is not intended to allow parties to snoop into private documents or construct possible defences they are presently unable to do. The court exercised its discretio…
Source excerpt
Hollard Life Insurance Company Limited v Cover Line (Pty) Ltd and Others (66656/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 701 (25 September 2014)
The court held that Rule 35(3) and Rule 35(14) do not apply in circumstances where no appearance to defend has been entered and default judgment has been granted. Discovery in application proceedings is only permitted in exceptional circumstances and upon application to the court under Rule 35(13). In this case, the applicant did not apply for the court to make Rule 35(13) applicable and did not set out any exceptional circumstances. As there was no pending action and no application for discovery, the applicant was not entitled to the relief sought. The application to compel was dismissed wit…
Source excerpt
Bruwer v Stols (5571/2010) [2011] ZAFSHC 120 (4 August 2011)
The court upheld a Rule 35(14) request for inspection of documents needed to plead to a counterclaim, finding the request specific and rejecting cost-based objections.
Explore more
