Maviyo v Velocity Finance (RF) Limited

The applicant brought an interlocutory application to compel the respondent to produce certain documents under Uniform Rules 35(12) and 35(14), including an original signed transaction schedule, documentation relating to an Altech Netstar service, and an electronically signed instalment sale agreement. The court dismissed that application with costs. The applicant then applied for leave to appeal, contending that the respondent had made sufficient direct or indirect reference to the documents in its answering affidavit to justify their production, relying on recent Supreme Court of Appeal authority.

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs, and the applicant was ordered to pay the respondent’s costs.

The case reaffirms the strict approach to applications for leave to appeal under section 17 of the Superior Courts Act and clarifies the application of Uniform Rule 35(12), particularly the requirement that documents referred to in affidavits must also be shown to be relevant. It also underscores that most discovery-related rulings are non-appealable interlocutory orders.