Distell LTD v FT Nentele Transport [2020] NAHCMD 324 (31 July 2020)

Distell LTD v FT Nentele Transport [2020] NAHCMD 324 (31 July 2020)

Although the plaintiff is poor and unable to pay an adverse costs order, the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff is a nominal litigant or a front for another party; thus, the exception to the general rule does not apply and security for costs is not warranted.

Citation
[2020] NAHCMD 324
Parties
Defendant: Distell Limited; Plaintiff: FT Nentele Transport CC
Court
High Court Main Division
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
31 July 2020
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Close Corporations, Access to Justice
Source Language
English
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Close Corporations Access to Justice

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Distell Limited

Defendant

FT Nentele Transport CC

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Ruling on Application for Security for Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to furnish security for costs under section 8 of the Close Corporations Act 26 of 1988 and/or common law

Ratio Decidendi

Although the plaintiff is poor and unable to pay an adverse costs order, the defendant failed to prove that the plaintiff is a nominal litigant or a front for another party; thus, the exception to the general rule does not apply and security for costs is not warranted.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs

Orders

  • The interlocutory application for the plaintiff to furnish security for costs is dismissed with costs, limited to N$20,000.