South Africa Case Law

Claassen and Others v Frame (2023/006221)

Claassen and Others v Frame (2023/006221) [2025] ZAGPJHC 705 (21 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/006221

Judge

M V Noko

The application to set aside the subpoena fails because Rule 38 and section 35 of the Superior Courts Act permit the issuance of subpoenas for documents relevant to proceedings, regardless of whether the subpoenaed person is to be called as a witness. The applicant's argument that a trial date must be set before a subpoena is issued is unfounded. The documents requested are relevant to the determination of the accrual in the divorce proceedings, and the applicant did not claim privilege or confidentiality over them. The contention of abuse of process is unsupported, as the subpoena was issued…

Source excerpt

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Accrual System
• Abuse Of Process
• Privilege And Confidentiality

S.P v S.B (2025/054457)

S.P v S.B (2025/054457) [2025] ZAWCHC 253 (19 June 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

2025/054457

Judge

Lekhuleni

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside a subpoena for salary and IRP5 records sought in a maintenance dispute, despite the wrong rule being used.

• Maintenance Dispute
• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Best Interests Of Child
• Procedural Irregularity
• Child-maintenance
• Subpoena-duces-tecum

MEC for Health, Gauteng v Dr Regan Solomons (1089/2023)

MEC for Health, Gauteng v Dr Regan Solomons (1089/2023) [2024] ZASCA 184 (30 December 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1089/2023

Judges

Mabindla-Boqwana, Kgoele, Keightley, Makume, Molitsoane

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the cause of action had ceased to exist before the matter was heard at first instance, as it was common cause that Dr Solomons did not possess or control the documents sought in the subpoena. Accordingly, the court below had no jurisdiction to enter into the merits or grant orders on the merits. Both the declaratory relief and the order compelling production of documents were rendered academic, and the only issue remaining was costs. The findings on the merits by the lower courts have no precedential value, as they were made without jurisdiction. The appe…

Source excerpt

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Mootness
• Declaratory Relief
• Costs Order

Muthray and Associates Incorporated and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (081393/2024)

Muthray and Associates Incorporated and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd and Others (081393/2024) [2024] ZAGPPHC 927 (17 September 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

081393/2024

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court confirmed an interim interdict protecting trust account statements from broad subpoena disclosure, dismissed condonation, and ordered punitive costs de bonis propriis.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Interim Interdict
• Trust Account Privacy
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Subpoena-duces-tecum
• Interdict

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others v Capm Tau Mine (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/067518)

Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited and Others v Capm Tau Mine (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/067518) [2024] ZAGPJHC 422 (2 May 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/067518

Judge

A W Pullinger

High Court refused to set aside subpoenas duces tecum issued in arbitration, holding the requested documents were relevant and not abusive.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Relevance Of Evidence
• Abuse Of Process
• Discovery Procedure
• Specific Performance
• Fraudulent Non Disclosure

Porter and Another v Esportif International (SA) (Pty) Ltd (22/18285)

Porter and Another v Esportif International (SA) (Pty) Ltd (22/18285) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1442 (8 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22/18285

Judge

Francis

The High Court dismissed an application to set aside subpoenas issued to third parties, finding the applicants lacked locus standi and had not shown abuse of process.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Locus Standi
• Abuse Of Process
• Statement And Debatement
• Employment Contract Dispute
• Subpoena-duces-tecum

Member of The Executive Council for Health Gauteng Province v Solomons (2022/A5070)

Member of The Executive Council for Health Gauteng Province v Solomons (2022/A5070) [2023] ZAGPJHC 739; 2023 (6) SA 601 (GJ) (27 June 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2022/A5070

Judges

Maier-Frawley, Wepener, Malungana

The court held that the appellant’s approach—issuing a subpoena duces tecum to compel disclosure of confidential patient information from a medical practitioner, absent patient consent and without judicial oversight—was inappropriate and contrary to the statutory and ethical framework governing patient confidentiality. The National Health Act and HPCSA guidelines require that disclosure of such information, absent consent, must be authorized by a court after a proper factual foundation is laid and the need for access is weighed against the privacy interests of the patient. The appellant faile…

Source excerpt

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Patient Privacy
• National Health Act
• Confidential Medical Information
• Declaratory Relief
• Judicial Oversight

Transasia Minerals (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Kunene and Others

Transasia Minerals (SA) Pty Ltd and Another v Kunene and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 216; 019883/2023 (24 March 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

019883/2023

Judge

Kooverjie

The High Court found that it has inherent jurisdiction to set aside a subpoena issued in the criminal court where the conduct constitutes an abuse of process. The existence of a pending application for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Appeal suspended the operation of Millar J's order, and compliance with the subpoena would frustrate and render meaningless the appeal process, potentially leading to conflicting findings between civil and criminal courts. The subpoena would compel disclosure of confidential and proprietary information, prejudicing the applicants and interfering with…

Source excerpt

• Abuse Of Process
• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Confidential Information
• Mining Rights
• Contempt Of Court

Moodley N.O and Others v Public Investment Corporation SOC Limited and Others (3609/2023)

Moodley N.O and Others v Public Investment Corporation SOC Limited and Others (3609/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 49 (9 March 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

3609/2023

Judge

Binns-Ward

The High Court set aside subpoenas duces tecum for lack of specificity, holding that “all” may be acceptable only where the requested class of documents is clearly defined.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Specificity Of Document Requests
• Uniform Rule 38
• Abuse Of Process
• Subpoena-duces-tecum
• Specificity-of-document-requests

Steyn v Meyer (59537/2021)

Steyn v Meyer (59537/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 772 (13 October 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

59537/2021

Judge

S. Potterill

The High Court set aside a subpoena duces tecum issued in application proceedings, holding that Rule 38 is for trial witnesses and documents, not applications.

• Subpoena Duces Tecum
• Rule 30 Irregular Step
• Discovery In Applications
• Maintenance Enforcement
• Subpoena-duces-tecum
• Rule-30-irregular-step