Dovetail Prpoerties (Pty) Limited v Sibanye Stillwater Limited (00127/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 110 (12 February 2024)

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 >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPJHC 110 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Dovetail Prpoerties (Pty) Limited v Sibanye Stillwater Limited (00127/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 110 (12 February 2024) Dovetail Prpoerties (Pty) Limited v Sibanye Stillwater Limited (00127/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 110 (12 February 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2024_110.html sino date 12 February 2024 REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG Case Number: 00127/2021 (1)           REPORTABLE: NO (2)           OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO _________________________ DATE                                     SIGNATURE In the matter between: DOVETAIL PRPOERTIES (PTY) LIMITED Applicant and SIBANYE STILLWATER LIMITED Respondent JUDGMENT This judgment has been delivered by being uploaded to the CaseLines profile on and communicated to the parties by email. Wepener, J [1]        This is a Commercial Court matter which is being conducted in term of the Commercial Court Practice Directive of this Division. In terms of Chapter 4 paragraph 22 “No request for further particulars may be sought in the Commercial Court.” [2]        Despite this provision, the applicant (defendant) has served and filed a request for particulars. Its heading indicates that the request is in terms of Rule 21 read together with Chapter 4 paragraph 18. In my view, the prohibition contained in the Commercial Court Practice Directives negate a request for further particulars in terms of Rule 21, which is ousted for the purposes of Commercial Court matters. [3]        The applicant further relies on the fact that Chapter 4 paragraph 18 provides that “matters heard in the Commercial Court will be dealt with in line with the broad principles of fairness, efficiency and cost-effectiveness.” [4]        This direction does not override the clear wording that “no request for further particulars may be sought . . .” (sic) served “in the Commercial Court. . . .” [5]        Unlike Chapter 5, in Rules 25 and 26, which also abolishes discovery but does open the door for some discovery, the rule against further particulars does not leave the door open. I do not need to consider whether exceptional circumstances would permit the request for further particulars as in this matter none such exceptional circumstances have been shown. [6]        Some exceptional ground or reason may have to be shown in order to go beyond the prohibition, if it is to be relaxed, but the applicant has not shown such exceptional circumstances. I note that the applicant has filed an extensive plea to issues raised in the particulars of claim and it had the opportunity to raise two exceptions on two different occasions. [7]        I am of the view that the result is that the extensive plea to the particulars of claim speaks against the need for further particulars. [8]        This matter was referred to the Commercial Court after pleadings had closed and the usual Commercial Court rules up to the close of pleadings did not apply, but, in my view, the witness statements which are to be exchanged and which ordinarily constitute the evidence in chief, will address any uncertainty which the applicant may have. [9]        In the circumstances the following order is made: The request for further particulars is dismissed with costs which include the costs of two counsel where two counsel were employed. ______________________________ Wepener J Heard: 12 February 2024 Delivered: 12 February 2024 For the Applicant:   Adv N. Luthuli Instructed by ENSAfrica For the Respondent:   Adv P. Sais SC. Instructed by Weavind & Weavind Incorporated sino noindex make_database footer start