The Madondo Land Claim Community (applicant) successfully lodged a land claim and was awarded monetary compensation as equitable redress. The compensation was paid into the Silindokuhle Community Trust account. The applicant brought a main application seeking to review and set aside the first respondent's decision to transfer the claimed land into the Silindokuhle Trust, alleging corruption and misuse of funds. In paragraphs 49-51 of the founding affidavit, the applicant made allegations that Restitution Discretionary Grants of R3,150,000.00 were subjected to "wanton looting" by the erstwhile trustees with the knowledge and/or collusion of Commission officials. The applicant annexed a bank statement (MM9) in support. The respondents failed to file answering affidavits until placed under bar. On the last day of being under bar, respondents filed a notice in terms of Rule 28(2) of the Land Claims Court Rules read with Rule 35(12) of the Uniform Rules requiring the applicant to produce documents on which the allegations in paragraphs 49-51 were based. The applicant applied to have this notice set aside as an irregular step.
1. The application was granted. 2. The respondents' notice in terms of Rule 28(2) of the Land Claims Court Rules read with Rule 35(12) of the Uniform Rules was set aside as an irregular step. 3. The first to fourth respondents were ordered to file their answering affidavit in respect of the applicant's main application within ten (10) days from the date of receipt of the order. 4. Costs reserved.
Rule 35(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court requires a party to produce only those documents or tape recordings that are specifically referenced in their pleadings or affidavits. The rule does not require production of any other evidence or documents that may exist but have not been expressly referred to. Where a party makes allegations in an affidavit but does not refer to any specific document or tape recording (other than documents already annexed and known to the opposing party), a notice under Rule 35(12) is not properly invoked and constitutes an irregular step that should be set aside.
The court made obiter observations that: (1) While Rule 35(12) does not set a specific time limit for filing such a notice (requiring only that it be filed before the hearing), the timing and context of filing may be relevant to assessing whether it is an irregular step. (2) Where allegations in an affidavit are scandalous, the appropriate remedy is to apply under Rule 23(2) of the Uniform Rules to have those allegations struck out, rather than attempting to use Rule 35(12). (3) The court acknowledged that the allegations made against the respondents regarding corruption and misuse of funds were scandalous in nature, though this did not justify the respondents' use of Rule 35(12).
This case clarifies the proper application of Rule 35(12) of the Uniform Rules in the context of land restitution proceedings. It establishes that Rule 35(12) applies only where a party has specifically referenced a document or tape recording in their pleadings or affidavits. The case demonstrates that the rule cannot be used as a fishing expedition to require parties to produce documents that may exist but have not been referenced. The judgment also illustrates the remedies available when faced with scandalous allegations in affidavits (striking out under Rule 23(2) rather than attempting to use Rule 35(12)). The case is significant in the land restitution context as it addresses procedural matters in disputes involving allegations of corruption and misuse of restitution funds.