N.B v R.B (38752/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 523 (29 April 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 523 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## N.B v R.B (38752/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 523 (29 April 2025) N.B v R.B (38752/2016) [2025] ZAGPJHC 523 (29 April 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_523.html sino date 29 April 2025 SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO : 38752/2016 DATE : 29-04-2025 DATE 29 April 2025 REPORTABLE: NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO. (3) REVISED. In the matter between N[…] B[…]                                                                          Applicant and R[…] B[…]                                                                          Respondent JUDGMENT CRUTCHFIELD, J : This is an application brought by the applicant, N[…] B[…], compelling the respondent, R[…] B[…], to make discovery within ten days of the date of service of this order on the respondent. The respondent appeared in person before me, opposing the application to compel discovery. The respondent objected to the application pursuant to a previous order granted by my brother Adams J. According to the respondent, Adams J granted an order that the respondent be paid an amount of R100 000.00 from certain net proceeds. I do not have an application in front of me dealing with the respondent’s alleged entitlement to payment of R100 000.00 from the applicant or her attorneys as alleged by the respondent. In the circumstances I am not able to deal therewith. Furthermore, paragraph 4.2 of the order of Adams J is a provision in terms of which the first respondent in that matter, is ordered to withhold R100 000.00 from the net proceeds in favour of the second respondent. In the circumstances I am not able to deal with the respondent’s claim to payment of R100 000.00 and the respondent, if he so wishes, may bring a proper application with all the appropriate facts and together with the necessary annexures to this court for the relief that he alleges he is entitled to. The respondent alleges that the only issue holding up the delivery of his discovery affidavit is payment of the alleged R100 000.00. Given that I am not in a position to deal with the R100 000.00 payment and that the respondent is free to bring the appropriate application should he wish to do so, I am left with the application to compel discovery alone before me. In the light of the respondent’s averment that there is nothing else preventing his compliance with the request that he make discovery, I intend to grant an order in terms of the application to compel, in particular the draft order that is uploaded by the applicant at CaseLines commencing at page 011-1 in the following terms: 1. The respondent is ordered to make discovery in terms of rule 35(7) within one month of the date of service of this order on the respondent. 2. In the event that the respondent does not comply with the order, the applicant is entitled to approach this court on the same papers duly supplemented, for an order striking out the respondent’s defence. 3. Each party will pay their own costs of this application. I hand down the judgment together with the order. CRUTCHFIELD, J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE : 29 April 2025. sino noindex make_database footer start