South Africa Case Law

Democratic Alliance and Others v Mkhwebane and Another (1370/2019)

Democratic Alliance and Others v Mkhwebane and Another (1370/2019) [2021] ZASCA 18; [2021] 2 All SA 337 (SCA); 2021 (3) SA 403 (SCA) (11 March 2021)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1370/2019

Judges

Navsa, Dlodlo, Nicholls, Carelse, Rogers

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that Rule 35(12) applies to documents referred to in affidavits and annexures, provided they are relevant, not privileged, and in the possession of the party. The application for the SSA Analyst post was clearly referenced in the annexure 'PPSA5' and was material to the timeline and facts at issue in the defamation claim. The respondent's denial of reference and relevance was rejected. The court clarified that relevance under Rule 35(12) is broader than under conventional discovery rules and is assessed in relation to issues that might arise, not only those cr…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 35 12
• Discovery And Production
• Relevance Of Documents
• Defamation Defence
• Onus In Interlocutory Applications

Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal v Malan (A1/2015)

Road Accident Fund Appeal Tribunal v Malan (A1/2015) [2016] ZAGPPHC 466 (14 June 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A1/2015

Judges

E.M Kubushi, N.B Tuchten, N. Ranchod

High Court appeal held that requested tribunal notes had been destroyed and were not part of the review record. The appeal was upheld and the order set aside.

• Discovery Of Documents
• Review Record
• Uniform Rule 35 12
• Uniform Rule 53 3
• Civil-procedure
• Discovery-of-documents

Penta Communication Services (Pty) Ltd v King and Another (6580/06)

Penta Communication Services (Pty) Ltd v King and Another (6580/06) [2006] ZAWCHC 61; 2007 (3) SA 471 (C) (22 December 2006)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6580/06

Judge

LJ Bozalek

The court held that Rule 35(12) does not oblige a party to produce documents whose existence is merely inferred from statements in affidavits; there must be a direct or indirect reference to the document. The applicant was justified in refusing production of documents for items where no such reference existed. However, for items 4 and 13, the applicant had clearly referred to specific documents in its founding affidavit and was therefore obliged to produce them, regardless of their bulk or whether the second respondent already possessed copies. The second respondent, although not a substantiv…

Source excerpt

• Uniform Rule 35 12
• Discovery Of Documents
• Sequestration Application
• Abuse Of Process