Dischem Sunward Park (Pty) Ltd and Another v HG Manolas t/a Sunward Park Pharmacy (2021/55809) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1124 (9 October 2023)
The court held that the respondent close corporation, having tendered security for costs through its attorneys and with the registrar having determined the amount and manner, was obliged to provide such security. There was no basis to revisit the obligation, and the application to compel security succeeded. The application for leave to file a supplementary answering affidavit was refused as the affidavit contained no material relevant to the issues in the main application. The application for leave for Mr. Manolas to represent the close corporation in the main action was dismissed, as the common law prohibits lay representation except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present....
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 1124
- Parties
- Applicant: Dischem Sunward Park (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Dischem Pharmacies Limited; Respondent: HG Manolas CC trading as Sunward Park Pharmacy
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 9 October 2023
- Case Number
- 2021/55809
- Procedural Posture
- Civil Application / Interlocutory Applications: Application to Compel Security for Costs, Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit, Application for Leave to Represent Close Corporation
- Outcome
- Application to compel security for costs granted; applications for leave to file supplementary affidavit and for lay representation dismissed; costs awarded against respondent.
- Judges
- S D J Wilson
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Representation of Close Corporation, Stay of Proceedings, Supplementary Affidavit, Costs Order
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Dischem Sunward Park (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Dischem Pharmacies Limited
Applicant
HG Manolas CC trading as Sunward Park Pharmacy
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Interlocutory Applications: Application to Compel Security for Costs, Application for Leave to File Supplementary Affidavit, Application for Leave to Represent Close Corporation
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent close corporation is obliged to provide security for costs as previously tendered.
- 2 Whether leave should be granted to file a supplementary answering affidavit.
- 3 Whether Mr. Manolas, as a layperson and sole member, should be permitted to represent the close corporation in the main action.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the respondent close corporation, having tendered security for costs through its attorneys and with the registrar having determined the amount and manner, was obliged to provide such security. There was no basis to revisit the obligation, and the application to compel security succeeded. The application for leave to file a supplementary answering affidavit was refused as the affidavit contained no material relevant to the issues in the main application. The application for leave for Mr. Manolas to represent the close corporation in the main action was dismissed, as the common law prohibits lay representation except in exceptional circumstances, which were not present....
Court Disposition
Application to compel security for costs granted; applications for leave to file supplementary affidavit and for lay representation dismissed; costs awarded against respondent.
Orders
- The respondent is ordered to furnish security in the form of an irrevocable banker’s guarantee in the amount of R225,226.
- The action instituted by the respondent under case number 55809/2021 is stayed until the required security is provided.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment