About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2012
>>
[2012] ZAGPJHC 253
|
|
Pangbourne Properties (Pty) Ltd v van der Merwe du Toit and Others (29968/08) [2012] ZAGPJHC 253 (17 October 2012)
IN THE
SOUTH GAUTENG HIGH COURT
JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO
: 29968/08
DATE
: 2012-10-17
In the matter between
PANGBOURNE PROPERTIES (PTY)
LIMITED
.................................
Plaintiff
and
VAN DER MERWE DU TOIT &
OTHERS
...........................................
Defendan
t
s
JUDGMENT
WILLIS J
:
[1] The first defendant, as applicant, has sought various orders,
the first of which relates to a request for further particulars
for
the purposes of preparation for trial in terms of rule 21 of the High
Court Rules, more particularly Rule 21 (2). The second
portion of
the application relates to a notice in terms of Rule 35 (3) for the
discovery of further documents and the last portion
of the
application relates to request for admissions and enquires in terms
of Rule 37 (4).
[2] The respondents in this application resist compliance with the
order on the basis that there is no
lis
between them and the
applicant who is the first defendant. In so far as the
interpretation of Rule 21 (2) is concerned, I fully
endorse the
sentiments expressed by Josman J in
Control Instruments Finance
(Pty) Ltd v Mercantile Ltd
2001 (3) SA 645
(C) from paragraphs
649D to 65B in so far as the interpretation of Rule 35 (3) and 37 (4)
are concerned. A plain reading of the
rules in themselves relating to
any party in the litigation clearly entitles the first defendant as
applicant to the relief which
it seeks.
[3] Mr
Batu
appears for the applicant has requested that the
costs of two counsel be allowed, this is in my view imminently
reasonable there
is a claim of some R45 million the case involves
complex issues of law and it is entirely reasonable to have two
counsel. Indeed
Mr
Heyns
who is appearing for the respondents
today, he is being led in the substantive matter by Mr
Maritz.
I
f I understood correctly, the reason for the absence of Mr
Maritz
today is that he is otherwise engaged.
[4] Consequently, the following is the order of the court: (i) The
applicant is granted an order in its favour in terms of prayers
1, 2,
3 and 4 of the notice of motion dated 26 September 2012; (ii) The
costs of the application are awarded in favour of the applicant
which
costs are to include the costs of two counsel.