Cawood N.O and Another v De Beer and Others (3353/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1204 (21 September 2023)

Cawood N.O and Another v De Beer and Others (3353/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1204 (21 September 2023)

The applicants failed to establish with sufficient particularity that the respondent is insolvent, unable to satisfy an adverse costs order, or that the main application is vexatious or an abuse of process. The respondent, as an incola, is generally not required to furnish security for costs unless exceptional circumstances are shown, such as insolvency or vexatious litigation. The respondent provided adequate disclosure of his financial position, and the applicants did not present evidence to rebut this or substantiate their claims. The applications for security for costs were not brought promptly, and the applicants' conduct raised concerns about their bona fides. The court exercised...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1204
Parties
Applicant: Werner Cawood N.O.; Applicant: Gerhardus Hager Dreyer N.O.; Respondent: Reuben De Beer; Respondent: Express Business Capital (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation); Respondent: Gert De Wet N.O.; Respondent: Johnine Maddocks (Hope) N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
21 September 2023
Case Number
3353/2022
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment on Applications for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(3)
Outcome
Applications for security for costs by both applicants are dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicants on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
M Meyer
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Uniform Rules of Court Rule 47, Vexatious Litigation, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Uniform Rules of Court Rule 47 Vexatious Litigation Costs Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Werner Cawood N.O.

Applicant

Gerhardus Hager Dreyer N.O.

Applicant

Reuben De Beer

Respondent

Express Business Capital (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation)

Respondent

Gert De Wet N.O.

Respondent

Johnine Maddocks (Hope) N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Opposed Motion; Judgment on Applications for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(3)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants have established grounds for the respondent to furnish security for costs under Rule 47(3).
  2. 2 Whether the respondent is insolvent or unable to satisfy an adverse costs order.
  3. 3 Whether the main application brought by the respondent is vexatious, malicious, or an abuse of process.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish with sufficient particularity that the respondent is insolvent, unable to satisfy an adverse costs order, or that the main application is vexatious or an abuse of process. The respondent, as an incola, is generally not required to furnish security for costs unless exceptional circumstances are shown, such as insolvency or vexatious litigation. The respondent provided adequate disclosure of his financial position, and the applicants did not present evidence to rebut this or substantiate their claims. The applications for security for costs were not brought promptly, and the applicants' conduct raised concerns about their bona fides. The court exercised...

Court Disposition

Applications for security for costs by both applicants are dismissed. Costs awarded against the applicants on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application brought by the First Applicant for security for costs under case number 3353/2022 is dismissed.
  • The First Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application on an attorney and client scale.