Buildon Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rasdi CC (1891/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 234 (13 December 2012)

Buildon Construction (Pty) Ltd and Another v Rasdi CC (1891/2012) [2012] ZAFSHC 234 (13 December 2012)

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving, by credible testimony, that the respondent would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs order. The applicants' assertions were based on prior dealings and subjective knowledge, which did not constitute credible evidence. The respondent, although not providing financial statements, demonstrated ongoing business operations and a legitimate claim for financial disclosure regarding the joint venture. The court further held that the applicants did not establish that the respondent's litigation was vexatious or an abuse of process. Technical legal points raised by the applicants did not render the action unsustainable....

Citation
[2012] ZAFSHC 234
Parties
Applicant: Buildon Construction (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: K P Noonan; Respondent: Rasdi CC
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 December 2012
Case Number
1891/2012
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application to Compel Respondent to Furnish Security for Costs Under Rule 47
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S J Thamage
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Close Corporation Act Section 8, Vexatious Litigation, Joint Venture Dispute
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Close Corporation Act Section 8 Vexatious Litigation Joint Venture Dispute

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Buildon Construction (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

K P Noonan

Applicant

Rasdi CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application to Compel Respondent to Furnish Security for Costs Under Rule 47

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be compelled to furnish security for costs under Rule 47 and section 8 of the Close Corporation Act.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's litigation is vexatious or an abuse of court process.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving, by credible testimony, that the respondent would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs order. The applicants' assertions were based on prior dealings and subjective knowledge, which did not constitute credible evidence. The respondent, although not providing financial statements, demonstrated ongoing business operations and a legitimate claim for financial disclosure regarding the joint venture. The court further held that the applicants did not establish that the respondent's litigation was vexatious or an abuse of process. Technical legal points raised by the applicants did not render the action unsustainable....

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application to compel the respondent to furnish security for costs is dismissed with costs.