South Africa Case Law

M v Member of the Executive Council for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (38426/14)

M v Member of the Executive Council for Health of the Gauteng Provincial Government (38426/14) [2018] ZAGPJHC 538 (15 August 2018)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

38426/14

Judge

P.A. Meyer

The court found that while the respondent is statutorily obliged to maintain health records, Rule 35 only requires a party to declare the true state of affairs regarding discovery at the time it is demanded. The respondent provided affidavits stating that the documents could not be found despite diligent searches. There was no evidence to suggest that these affidavits were false or mistaken. The court agreed with the reasoning in Dube v Member of the Executive Council, holding that Rule 35 does not provide a remedy for poor record-keeping or breach of statutory duties, and that compelling pro…

Source excerpt

• Discovery Of Documents
• Rule 35 Uniform Rules
• Medical Negligence
• Statutory Record Keeping

Biermann v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (EL1051/10, ECD2151/10)

Biermann v Eastern Cape Development Corporation (EL1051/10, ECD2151/10) [2013] ZAECELLC 10 (7 August 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL1051/10, ECD2151/10

Judge

Hartle

A discovery dispute in a salary-related claim: the court ordered the respondent to file a full Rule 35(3) discovery response, but declined to strike out its defence.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Statutory Record Keeping
• Performance Bonus Dispute
• Employment Contract Entitlements
• Discovery-of-documents
• Civil-procedure