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
Griessel and Another v De Kock N.O and Others (79315/23) [2025] ZAGPPHC 540 (30 May 2025)
High Court application to compel further discovery under Rule 35(7) dismissed with punitive costs after the court found the requests unjustified.
Afadzi v City of Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality and Others (2020/18095) [2025] ZAGPJHC 506 (23 May 2025)
High Court dismissed an application to compel further discovery, finding the respondents had substantially complied with Rule 35(3) by stating the documents were not in their possession.
Idexis (Pty) Ltd t/a Sentra Pharmacy and Another v Novo Nordisk (Pty) Ltd (130119/2024) [2025] ZAGPPHC 393 (8 April 2025)
The High Court dismissed an application to compel discovery under Uniform Rule 35, finding the notice defective, Rule 30A not properly invoked, and the case an abuse of process.
Gemvest 45 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Nedbank Ltd (071639/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 337 (25 March 2025)
The High Court dismissed a rule 30A application to compel further discovery, holding the rule 35 requests were too broad and not required for pleading.
Cope and Another v Liversage (4151/2021) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 20 (5 March 2025)
The court held that Rule 35(14) is intended solely for the purpose of pleading, and once the applicants have filed their plea, they are precluded from relying on Rule 35(14) to compel discovery. The applicants' request for documents to amend their plea or formulate a counterclaim falls outside the scope of Rule 35(14) and amounts to a fishing expedition. The proper procedure for compelling compliance with Rule 35(14) is through Rule 30A, which was not followed. Regarding Rule 35(3), the court found that the applicants failed to establish the relevance of the requested documents to the issues…
Source excerpt
Mphatlane N.O and Others v Randvest Capital Investments (Pty) Ltd and Others (017896/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 95 (5 February 2025)
The High Court granted a rule 35(7) application compelling discovery of relevant documents in a share transfer and director removal dispute.
Botha v Standard Bank of South Africa Limited and Others (2021/17543) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1118 (1 November 2024)
The High Court held that Rule 35(12) could be used in motion proceedings without prior Rule 35(13) directions, but dismissed both the Rule 30 and compel applications.
Discovery Life Limited v Pranpath (07606/2021) [2024] ZAKZDHC 82 (1 November 2024)
The court ordered discovery of financial and corporate documents relevant to an insurer’s claim that disability benefits were wrongly paid.
Gerber v Boyle and Another (2022/034505) [2024] ZAGPJHC 946 (20 September 2024)
The High Court granted an application compelling further discovery under Rule 35(3), rejecting the defendant’s claim that the request was an abuse of process.
Lusaseni v Mashamaite (64478/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 846 (26 August 2024)
The court found that the respondent's affidavit did not comply with Rule 35(3) because it failed to state unequivocally whether the respondent knew the whereabouts of the requested documents or to declare if such knowledge was lacking. The court rejected the respondent's argument that Rule 35(7) was applicable, holding that Rule 35(3) governs supplementation of inadequate discovery, not total failure to discover. The court also dismissed the procedural objection regarding the notice of motion, noting that the respondent was aware of the proceedings and had responded. Accordingly, the applicat…
Source excerpt
Explore more
