(Inlexso Innovative Legal Services) - gs 
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO:  58765/2019
DATE:   17/03/2020

DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1)  REPORTABLE:      YES / NO
(2)  OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:   YES / NO
(3)  REVISED 
                                          ....................................................
                                          SIGNATURE
DATE:  .............................

In the matter between

MTEMBENI NDEVU
and
AMBITIOUS GROUP (PTY) LTD t/a 
AMBITIOUZ ENTERTAINMENT

SOLOMON KGOSITHEBE MAHUMAPELO

J U D G M E N T

VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, J:  In matter 58765/19 the applicant seeks declarators presumably in terms of the provisions of Section 82(C) of the Promotion Act says to Information Act Number 2 of 2000.  
	The applicant contracted with the 1st respondent that was represented by the 2nd respondent in terms of what is termed by the applicant an artist agreement, a management agreement and a publishing agreement.  
	The relief that is sought is in effect declaratory orders in that all three of the agreements had terminated and are of no further binding effect upon the applicant.  The respondents oppose that application.  
	Much has been said in the papers in respect of the existence of the said three agreements and the terms and conditions contained therein.  The applicant set out initially to obtain copies of the artist agreement and the management agreement, which request was ignored by the respondents. 
	After certain negotiations between the parties, a formal request was filed in terms of Section 78 of the Promotion of Access to Information Act which was forwarded to the attorneys of the respondent. However, no response was obtained from them. This application was then issued. It is not quite clear whether it is solely in terms of the common law that a declaratory  is sought, or as part of the relief that a Court may grant in terms of the provisions of Section 82 of the said Act.
	The allegation is made in the founding papers that the respondents need not bother to supply those agreements. They have ignored all requests in that regard, hence the declarator of termination or expiry is sought, or rather of no binding effect.  
	By some other means a copy of the publishing agreement was obtained and that was placed before the Court.  The response, in general, by the respondents was that the agreements had been extended and because of the attitude of the applicant, it declined to favour the Court with the said agreements.  
	It is not possible to determine the issues between the parties without having sight of the relevant agreements.  In addition, the applicant sought copies of all financial reports in respect of the three agreements, a request which was also summarily ignored.     
	The fact of the matter is that neither of the party’s concerns can be dealt with appropriately without considering the terms and conditions of the said agreements.  The respondent’s had placed other documentation before the Court upon which they rely for the continuance of the said agreements.  
	It is not possible to consider those responses or those documents without again having sight of the agreements.  Although it is inviting to summarily dismiss the application for want of proper information, it is in neither of the party’s interest and it is not appropriate in terms of justice to take an arbitrary approach to this matter. 
	Albeit it that it is not that clear on which basis this application has been drafted and placed before Court, and after hearing submissions from both parties on the issues the respondents, when faced with the fact that they may be considered to have conceded to the relief in respect of the management and artist agreement as on the face of the documentation provided by them, it appears that it only deals with the publishing agreement.  
	The respondents in an about face conceded that they will endeavour to supply the applicant with all the relevant and requested information to enable the Court to come to a proper consideration and conclusion on the type of relief that ought to be granted.  
	The applicant grasped a proposal whether the matter should not be postponed sine die and the respondent’s put on terms to supply the required information.
	I interpose to record that the respondents took a flippant attitude in their answering affidavit. They are of the view that it is customary to provide copies of all agreements with artists to the artist at some stage and hence this application was unnecessary, or the request for providing the agreements was unnecessary. The respondents then have the attitude by not favouring the Court at least with copies thereof.  
	That attitude is not an appropriate attitude, in particular where qualified and experienced legal practitioners are in charge.  Justice requires and obliges that the parties be afforded a further opportunity of placing the relevant information before the Court, as both parties had an obligation, in my view, to supply the necessary documentation.  The parties were afforded an opportunity to discuss the matter between themselves and to make submissions, in particular, as to the issue of costs.  The parties however came to an overall agreement that the respondents would provide the three agreements and the financial reports.  
	That is all the information that is sought in the formal notice in terms of the Promotion of Access to Information Act that was dated 19 June 2019, and both parties were amenable to an order that they be afforded an opportunity to supplement their papers.  They also agreed on the issue of costs. 

	I grant the following order:
1.	The application is postponed sine die. 
2.	The Respondents are directed to supply the requested information contained in the notice of motion dated 19 June 2019 within ten (10) days from the date of this order.
3.	The parties are granted leave to supplement their respective papers in the following manner:  
(A)	Within ten (10) days from receiving the relevant information the Applicant is to file a supplementary affidavit.
(B)	The Respondent is to file its supplementary affidavit within ten (10) days from receiving the Applicant’s supplementary affidavit.  
4.	Costs are reserved.  

---oOo---

…………………………..
VAN DER WESTHUIZEN, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE:  …………………