Bullion Farming Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Van Tonder (10711/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 683 (14 September 2018)

Bullion Farming Enterprises (Pty) Ltd v Van Tonder (10711/2018) [2018] ZAGPPHC 683 (14 September 2018)

The applicant bears the onus to show that the respondent's claim is vexatious or unsustainable and that exceptional circumstances exist to justify security for costs. While the respondent's explanations for signing the relevant documents were lacking in detail, the applicant also failed to provide sufficient context or evidence to demonstrate that the respondent's claim is vexatious or reckless. The court cannot be left to speculate about the circumstances surrounding the documents and the parties' conduct. Accordingly, the applicant has not discharged the onus required for an order of security for costs under Rule 47(3).

Citation
[2018] ZAGPPHC 683
Parties
Applicant: Bullion Farming Enterprises (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jacobus Cornelius Van Tonder
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 September 2018
Case Number
10711/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(3) Prior to Main Action Proceeding
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed with costs.
Judges
Erasmus
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Vexatious Litigation, Rule 47 Application
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Vexatious Litigation Rule 47 Application

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bullion Farming Enterprises (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jacobus Cornelius Van Tonder

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(3) Prior to Main Action Proceeding

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's main claim is vexatious, unsustainable, or reckless so as to justify an order for security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has discharged the onus to show exceptional circumstances warranting security for costs against an incola.
  3. 3 Whether the documents signed by the respondent (acknowledgment of debt and waiver of claim) render the main action unsustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant bears the onus to show that the respondent's claim is vexatious or unsustainable and that exceptional circumstances exist to justify security for costs. While the respondent's explanations for signing the relevant documents were lacking in detail, the applicant also failed to provide sufficient context or evidence to demonstrate that the respondent's claim is vexatious or reckless. The court cannot be left to speculate about the circumstances surrounding the documents and the parties' conduct. Accordingly, the applicant has not discharged the onus required for an order of security for costs under Rule 47(3).

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's application in terms of Rule 47(3) dated 22 March 2018 is dismissed with costs.