Anglo American Emea Shared Services (Pty) Ltd and Another v Limpop Propellers CC and Others (899/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 147 (17 February 2025)

45 Reportability
Civil Procedure

Brief Summary

Discovery — Striking out of defence — Failure to comply with court order for discovery — Applicants sought striking out of respondent's defence due to non-compliance — Respondent's vague claims of being let down by former attorneys insufficient to excuse non-compliance — Court infers lack of seriousness in litigating from continued non-compliance — Striking out application granted.

Page 2 of 5

ANGLO AMERICAN EMEA SHARED
SERVICES (PTY) LTD First Plaintiff

ANGLO AMERICAN SERVICES (UK) LTD. Second Plaintiff

And

POXX ENTERPRISES (PTY) LTD First Defendant

LIMPOPO PROPELLERS CONSULTING CC Second Defendant

JOSHUA MACHUTE RAPOO Third Defendant

PATRICK TEBOGO RAPOO Fourth Defendant

THAMMY SEKGOBELA Fifth Defendant

LE -THA-NELLY KGWEBO A TIRO (PTY) LTD Sixth Defendant

BAIPUSHI CIVIL AND ELECTRICAL (PTY) LTD Seventh Defendant

FIRST RAND BANK LIMITED
T/A FIRST NATIONAL BANK Eighth Defendant

ABSA BANK LIMITED Ninth Defendant


JUDGMENT


WRIGHT J
1. The applicant companies instituted action against a number of defendants.
2. The second defendant, now the present respondent, Limpopo, filed a plea. Later
the applicants’ attorneys sought discovery by the respondent. Such was not
forthcoming and on 20 February 2024 this court ordered discovery by the
respondent within five days. The order allowed the applicants to approach the
Page 3 of 5

court for a striking out of the respondent’s defence. Discovery was not
forthcoming.
3. A striking out application was launched on 6 March 2024. The applicants sought
the striking out of the defence and judgement for the money amounts claimed in
the action.
4. The striking out application and the documents pre ceding it were all served
timeously on the respondent’s then attorneys. These attorneys withdrew as
attorneys of record on 19 April 2024.
5. On the day of the hearing, 31 July 2024, Mr Makaepea, apparently the moving
force behind Limpopo, appeared personally. The judge hearing the matter
postponed the application to afford the respondent an opportunity to oppose the
application.
6. New attorneys came on board for Limpopo and an answering affidavit was filed.
It is conceded in this affidavit that there was proper service of all documents
hitherto . It is stated vaguely that Limpopo was let down by its former attorneys.
7. To date, there is still no compliance with the order of 20 February 2024. The only
inference to be draw n is that Limpopo is not serious about litigating as it s hould.
8. At the last minute, Ms Malungani appeared for the respondent.
9. She was briefed only yesterday. The matter is not ready for hearing.
10. Ms Malungani undertook on behalf of her client that it would discover by 4pm on
27 February 2025.


Page 5 of 5


Respondent Adv T Malungani

Instructed by CHAYYA ATTORNEYS
015 295 9626
arshad@chayyaattorneys.co.za