Institute of Development Management v Tsotsi (C of A (CIV) 17 of 92) [1991] LSCA 94 (2 August 1991)

C of A (CIV) 17/92 In the Appeal of : INSTITUTE OF DEVELOPMENT MANAGEMENT APPELLANT and BANGANI B. TSOTSI RESPONDENT Held at Maseru Coram: Mahomed J. P. Steyn J. A. Browde J. A. JUDGMENT Steyn J. A. In the Court below Appellants defence was struck out because of his failure to comply with a Court Order compelling discovery. It appeals against this Order. The relevant facts are the following. The pleadings in this matter were closed on the 2nd of August, 1991. On t he 8 th of O c t o b er 1 9 91 R e s p o n d e nt s e r v ed A p p e l l a nt w i th a n o t i ce to d i s c o v e r. A p p e l l a nt f a i l ed to c o m p ly w i th t h is r e q u e s t. On M a r ch 17 1 9 92 a n o t h er n o t i ce of d i s c o v e ry w as s e r v ed on A p p e l l a nt a g a in w i th no r e s u l t. On J u ne 23 1 9 92 R e s p o n d e nt w r o te a l e t t er to A p p e l l a n t 's - A t t o r n e ys r e q u e s t i ng t he i m m e d i a te d e l i v e ry of A p p e l l a n ts d i s c o v e ry a f f i d a v i t. On 2 1 st J u ly R e s p o n d e n ts b o th f i l ed of r e c o rd a nd s e r v ed on A p p e l l a nt a n o t i ce to c o m p el it to d e l i v er i ts d i s c o v e ry a f f i d a v i t. A p p e l l a nt g a ve n o t i ce of an i n t e n t i on to o p p o se t he a p p l i c a t i o n. On 2 4 th J u l y, h o w e v er R e s p o n d e nt m a de an a p p l i c a t i on in c h a m b er f or an O r d er on t he A p p e l l a nt ( a) to d e l i v er i ts a f f i d a v it on or b e f o re 3 0 th J u ly 1 9 92 f a i l i ng w h i ch ( b) A p p l i c a t i on w o u ld be m a de to s t r i ke o ut i ts d e f e n ce in t e r ms of R u le 34 ( a) of t he R u l es of C o u r t. W h i l st d i s p e n s i ng w i th t he n o r m al r u l es in r e g a rd to s e r v i ce of p r o c e ss t he p r e s i d i ng J u d ge o r d e r ed t h at t he p a p e rs be s e r v ed on t he A p p e l l a nt a nd t h at t he a p p l i c a t i on w o u ld be h e a rd on A u g u st 3, 1 9 9 2. On the p o s t p o n ed d a t e, in o p en C o u rt and w i th k n o w l e d ge of a p p l i c a n ts C o u n s el the a p p l i c a t i on w as g r a n t e d. T he o r d er s p e c i f i c a l ly s t a t ed t h at f a i l u re to c o m p ly m i g ht r e s u lt in the s t r i k i ng out of its d e f e n c e. O n ce a g a in A p p e l l a nt f a i l ed to r e s p o n d, g i v i ng no r e a s o ns for such f a i l u r e. On A u g u st 14 the p a r t i es a p p e a r ed b e f o re M r. J u s t i ce L e h o h la in o p en C o u r t. A p p e l l a nt w as r e p r e s e n t ed by M r. N a t h a ne w ho filed an a f f i d a v it in the f o l l o w i ng t e r m s: "3 On the 3rd A u g u s t, 1 9 92 H is L o r d s h ip J u s t i ce K h e o la o r d e r ed D e f e n d a nt to f i le an a f f i d a v it of d i s c o v e ry on or b e f o re the 6 th A u g u s t, 1 9 9 2. An a f f i d a v it of d i s c o v e ry had in f a ct b e en p r e p a r ed and sent to M R. E P H R A IM L E P E TU S E T S W A E L O, the R e g i o n al D i r e c t or of D e f e n d a n t, w ho is b a s ed in B o t s w a n a, for s e t t l i ng s a me as far b a ck as J u n e, 1 9 9 2. I a n n ex a c o py of s a me h e r e to and m a rk it " H N 1 ". I h a ve on a n u m b er of o c c a s i o ns m a de r e m i n d e rs to D e f e n d a nt to h a ve same s e t t l ed s o o n e st and r e t u r n ed to us for f i l i ng in C o u r t. T o - d a te the a f f i d a v it has not been r e t u r n ed to us d e s p i te our s u p p l i c a t i o n s. I want to b r i ng it to the a t t e n t i on of this H o n o u r a b le Court that f a i l u re to c o m p ly w i th its o r d er is not w i l f ul but we are u n a b le to c o m p ly w i th s a m e. I t h e r e f o re p r ay this H o n o u r a b le Court to e x t e nd the t i me limit w i t h in w h i ch the a f f i d a v it m u st be f i l e d. I m a ke this a f f i d a v it in o p p o s i t i on of the p r a y er s o u g h t ." M r. J u s t i ce L e h o h la a f t er h e a r i ng a r g u m e nt g r a n t ed the o r d er s t r i k i ng out A p p e l l a n ts d e f e n c e. T he r u le 34 (a) p r o v i d es as f o l l o w s: (9) If any p a r ty f a i ls to g i ve d i s c o v e ry as a f o r e s a i d, or h a v i ng b e en s e r v ed w i th a n o t i ce u n d er s u b - r u le ( 8) o m i ts to g i ve n o t i ce of a time for i n s p e c t i on as a f o r e s a id or f a i ls to g i ve i n s p e c t i on as r e q u i r ed by that s u b - r u l e, the p a r ty d e s i r i ng d i s c o v e ry or i n s p e c t i on m ay a p p ly to court w h i ch may o r d er c o m p l i a n ce w i th this rule a n d, f a i l i ng s u ch c o m p l i a n c e, m ay d i s m i ss the c l a im or s t r i ke out the d e f e n c e ." B o th b e f o re us as w e ll as in the C o u rt b e l ow A p p e l l a nt s o u g ht to a t t a ck the v a l i d i ty of the O r d er of A u g u st 3 1 9 92 d i r e c t i ng A p p e l l a nt to m a ke d i s c o v e r y. He did so on the g r o u nd that there w as p e n d i ng an a p p l i c a t i on for an a m e n d m e nt to the f u r t h er p a r t i c u l a rs f i l ed by R e s p o n d e n t. C o u n s el for R e s p o n d e nt p o i n t ed to the fact that in the e v e nt the a m e n d m e nt was g r a n t ed by K h e o la J on A u g u st 3 1 9 9 2, also that the r e l e v a nt o r d er w as i n t e r l o c u t o ry and no a p p e al lay a g a i n st i t. M o r e o v e r, no a p p l i c a t i on for r e c i s s i on w as m a d e. An o v e r r i d i ng c o n s i d e r a t i on in my v i ew is that the a m e n d m e n ts s o u g ht w e re b o th f o r m a l, r e m e d y i ng an o b v i o us e r r or a nd of no s i g n i f i c a n c e. C e r t a i n ly t h ey w o u ld n ot h a ve n e c e s s i t a t ed t he r e o p e n i ng of t he p l e a d i n gs n or w o u ld t h ey e v er h a ve n e c e s s i t a t ed a n e ed f or f u r t h er or b e t t er d i s c o v e r y. C o u n s el f or A p p e l l a nt w as u n a b le to p o i nt to a ny m i s d i r e c t i on on t he p a rt of t he C o u rt a q uo in e x e r c i s i ng i ts d i s c r e t i on to s t r i ke o ut t he d e f e n c e. I n d e ed it is o ur v i ew t h at on t he f a c ts o u t l i n ed a b o ve t he C o u rt h ad no r e al a l t e r n a t i v e. W hy do I s ay t h i s? In t he f i r st p l a c e, w h i l st A p p e l l a n t 's a t t o r n ey s e e ks to e x e m pt h i m s e lf f r om a ll b l a m e, no a t t e m pt w h a t s o e v er is m a de to e x p l a in A p p e l l a n t 's f a i l u re to c o m p ly w i th t he o r d e r. I n d e ed t he a v e r m e n ts m a de by t he a t t o r n ey t h at he h ad on a n u m b er of o c c a s i o ns m a de r e m i n d e rs to A p p e l l a nt a nd t h at " to d a te t he a f f i d a v it h as n ot b e en r e t u r n ed to us d e s p i te o ur s u p p l i c a t i o n s" t e nd to e x a c e r b a te t he d e g r ee of A p p e l l a n t 's b l a m e w o r t h i n e s s. ( My u n d e r l i n i n g) It m u st a l so be n o t ed t h at e v en at t h is l a te s t a ge no o f f er w as m a de c o m m i t t i ng a p p e l l a nt to c o m p l i a n ce w i th t he o r d e r. S e c o n d l y, t he h i s t o ry on r e c o rd of t he n u m e r o us r e q u e s ts f or d i s c o v e ry m a de by R e s p o n d e n t, o v er a p e r i od of s o me 10 m o n t hs - a ll to no a v a il - a nd w i t h o ut a ny r e a s on f or t he f a i l u re to c o m p ly w i th s u ch r e q u e s ts b e i ng f u r n i s h ed by A p p e l l a n t, r e i n f o r c ed our v i ew t h at the C o u rt a q uo w as c o r r e ct in f i n d i ng that it w as o b l i g ed to e x e r c i se i ts d i s c r e t i on in f a v o ur of s t r i k i ng out the d e f e n c e. T he s t ep t a k en by the C o u rt w as i n d e ed the i n v o c a t i on of an e x t r e me r e m e d y. T he C o u r ts h a ve h e ld that s u ch an o r d er s h o u ld o n ly be r e s o r t ed to if the f a i l u re to c o m p ly w as due to the c o n t u m a cy of the p a r ty in q u e s t i o n. In W i l s on v D ie A f r i k a a n se P e rs P u b l i k a s i es ( E d m s) B p k. 1 9 71 (3) S. A. 4 55 at 4 6 3, the C o u rt p er P h i l l i ps A. J. held t h a t: " t h is g r a ve s t ep w i ll be r e s o r t ed to o n ly if the C o u rt c o n s i d e rs that a d e f e n d a nt h as d e l i b e r a t e ly and c o n t e m p t u o u s ly d i s o b e y ed its o r d er . ..." (In the c i t ed c a s e, a f a i l u re to d e l i v er f u r t h er p a r t i c u l a r s .) On the f a c ts in t he i n s t a nt c a se and in our j u d g m e nt the A p p e l l a nt w as c l e a r ly in c o n t e m pt and h is c o n d u ct c a n n o t, in t he a b s e n ce of any e x p l a n a t i o n, be c o n s t r u ed as a n y t h i ng o t h er t h an a d e l i b e r a te r e f u s al to c o m p ly w i th the C o u r t 's o r d e r. The C o u rt a quo c a n n ot in the c i r c u m s t a n c es of t h is c a se be f a u l t ed in e x e r c i s i ng i ts d i s c r e t i on to s t r i ke o ut a p p l i c a n t 's d e f e n c e. For t h e se r e a s o ns t he a p p e al is d i s m i s s ed w i th c o s t s. S i g n ed : I agree : I agree : J. N. JUDGE OF APPEAL STEYN I. Mahomed PRESIDENT OF APPEAL J. BROWDE JUDGE OF APPEAL