Discovery applications must pertain to specific, relevant documents and pleadings to be granted.

[1] Before me, there are two separate applications [encls 114 and 126] for discovery of documents under O 24 ROC 2012.

Facts

[2] This is a claim by the plaintiffs against the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants ("the main defendants") for a range of causes of action that inter alia include breach of contract, breach of fiduciary duty, defamation, fraud, tort of inducement of breach of contract, conspiracy, tort of unlawful interference with business and trade of the plaintiff's company.

[3] It was alleged that, the main defendants, who are the directors and shareholders of the 1st defendant, had contacted the plaintiffs' client, one AEL (Mauritius) Ltd ("AEL Mauritius") that the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants were forming a new company (culminating into the establishment of the 1st defendant) and urged AEL Mauritius to award the 1st defendant with the contract to the detriment of the plaintiffs.

[4] In their defence, the main defendants categorically denied that they were in breach of contract, fiduciary duty or otherwise involved in other allegations in the statement of claim and further stated that whatever contract that they acquired from AEL Mauritius was obtained through a proper bidding process.

Enclosure 114 (Application By The Plaintiffs)

[5] This is an application by the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant for an order that the main defendants to give discovery by making and serving on the applicant, a list of documents which are in their possession, custody or power.

[6] The documents sought to be discovered by the applicants inter alia are the business documents in respect of the bank accounts, invoices, bills and other related documents concerning an agreement between AEL (Mauritius) and the 1st defendant.

[7] Counsel for the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant submitted that the application before me (encl 114) is premised on the plaintiffs' claim for the loss of profits, general and special damages and punitive damages.

[8] The application was basically made for two reasons:-

[i] the documents listed for the purpose of discovery of which the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant had no access that would be necessary for the purpose of the assessment of damages; and

[ii] the documents are also relevant in the issue of liability of the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants.

[9] In their Notice to Produce under O 24 r 10 of the ROC [Form 41], the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant had specifically referred to:-

(i) the contract between AEL Mauritius and with the 1st defendant

(ii) the letter dated 9 October 2010 issued by the 2nd, 3rd and 4th defendants

(iii) Invoices and bills in respect of the contract between the first defendant and AEL Mauritius.

(iv) Account and bank statements related to payments made under the contract between the 1st defendant and AEL Mauritius.

[10] In his affidavit in reply, the 3rd defendant who deposed the affidavit on his behalf and on behalf of the 1st, 2nd and 4th defendants, averred that they had furnished the plaintiffs and the 5th defendant with documents (i) and (ii).

[11] But the 3rd defendant averred in his affidavit in reply that the main defendants took exception to documents (iii) and (iv) because they were neither pleaded nor specifically referred to in the pleadings especially in the Defence and Counter Claim.

[12] Counsel for the main defendants then submitted that the application (encl 114) ought to be dismissed for the following reasons:

[i] the application is a fishing expedition and a blatant abuse of the process;

[ii] the documents sought are not necessary or otherwise crucial for the purpose and eventual determination of the trial;

[iii] the plaintiffs