Dinos and Another v Agro V.I.M SA and Another (08284/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 72 (29 January 2015)

Dinos and Another v Agro V.I.M SA and Another (08284/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 72 (29 January 2015)

The court held that the general rule requires a peregrinus to provide security for costs to an incola, especially where the incola would face uncertainty and inconvenience in enforcing a costs order abroad. The first respondent did not allege impecuniosity or hardship in furnishing security and, in fact, confirmed...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 72
Parties
Applicant: Panagiotos Dinos; Applicant: Lambros Dinos; Respondent: Agro V.I.M SA; Respondent: Matou France Viohar S.A.
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 January 2015
Case Number
08284/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Security for Costs by Incola Against Peregrinus
Outcome
Application granted. The first respondent is ordered to provide security for costs and to pay the costs of the application.
Judges
Windell
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus Vs Incola, Court Discretion, Costs Order Enforcement
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Peregrinus Vs Incola Court Discretion Costs Order Enforcement

Source-derived case record

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Panagiotos Dinos

Applicant

Lambros Dinos

Applicant

Agro V.I.M SA

Respondent

Matou France Viohar S.A.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Security for Costs by Incola Against Peregrinus

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court should order a peregrinus to provide security for costs to an incola.
  2. 2 Whether the financial ability of the peregrinus affects the obligation to provide security.
  3. 3 Whether any facts justify deviation from the general rule requiring security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the general rule requires a peregrinus to provide security for costs to an incola, especially where the incola would face uncertainty and inconvenience in enforcing a costs order abroad. The first respondent did not allege impecuniosity or hardship in furnishing security and, in fact, confirmed its financial ability to do so. No facts justified deviation from the general rule, and the court was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the first respondent. Accordingly, the application for security for costs was granted.

Court Disposition

Application granted. The first respondent is ordered to provide security for costs and to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The first respondent is ordered to provide security for the costs of the applicants in an amount to be determined by the Registrar.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the cost of this application.