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
Zouzoua v Investec Bank Limited (2021/444429) [2024] ZAGPJHC 994 (4 October 2024)
The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal against an order involving Rule 35(12), loan agreement fees, recklessness, and Rule 46A enforcement.
Motlana v Msibi N.O and Another (38673/2022) [2024] ZAGPPHC 515 (4 June 2024)
The court held that discovery in application proceedings is not a right but an exceptional remedy available only if the court grants leave under Rule 35(13). The applicant failed to obtain such leave before serving her notice for discovery, rendering her request and any compel relief incompetent. The applicant's notice did not distinguish between documents sought under Rule 35(12) and (14), and the request was overly broad, amounting to a fishing expedition. The procedural irregularities in the applicant's counter-application further undermined her entitlement to relief. The court exercised i…
Source excerpt
Mercuria Energy Trading SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Omang Trading and Logistics (Pty) Ltd and Others (15724/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 577 (26 May 2023)
High Court order compelling further discovery under Rule 35(3) in a commercial dispute over VAT refunds and alleged privilege claims.
Alfs Tippers CC v Steyn (11407/2019) [2023] ZAGPJHC 527 (19 May 2023)
The court found that the respondent, as sole director of MSR Plant and Equipment (Pty) Ltd, had the power and control over the company and its documents, and was duty-bound to possess and keep all its financial records. The respondent's assertion that the documents belonged to a separate entity was inadequate, as she owed fiduciary duties to MSR and shared premises with the company. The documents requested by the applicant are relevant to the issues in dispute and necessary for a fair trial. The respondent's responses to the Rule 35(3) notices were insufficient and evasive. The court held tha…
Source excerpt
Santam Limited and Another v Group Five Limited and Another (33380/16) [2018] ZAGPJHC 54 (22 March 2018)
High Court ruling on Rule 35(14) discovery. The court ordered disclosure of defects reports, but refused related requests for liability and refusal documents.
Boldprops 1110 CC v Automatic Holdings (Pty) Ltd and Another (07946/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 216 (5 August 2016)
The High Court dismissed an application to strike out a franchise agreement annexed in reply, finding the respondents suffered no prejudice and knew the document.
Explore more
