Izaksmal and Another v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (15/38943) [2017] ZAGPPHC 674 (29 September 2017)

Izaksmal and Another v BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd (15/38943) [2017] ZAGPPHC 674 (29 September 2017)

The court found that the plaintiffs' action was reckless, vexatious, and amounted to an abuse of process. The plaintiffs failed to challenge previous judgments, including an eviction order and arbitration award, and their cause of action was unsustainable. The court exercised its discretion, as confirmed by precedent, to order the plaintiffs to furnish security for the defendants' legal costs. The action was stayed pending provision of security, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally.

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 674
Parties
Plaintiff: Izaksmal; Plaintiff: UpandUnderMotorsCC; Defendant: BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: The West Rand District Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2017
Case Number
15/38943
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs and Stay of Action
Outcome
Application granted. Plaintiffs ordered to furnish security for costs. Action stayed pending provision of security. Plaintiffs to pay costs of application jointly and severally.
Judges
MA Makume
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Abuse of Process, Close Corporation Liability, Vexatious Litigation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Abuse of Process Close Corporation Liability Vexatious Litigation

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

Parties

Izaksmal

Plaintiff

UpandUnderMotorsCC

Plaintiff

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

The West Rand District Municipality

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs and Stay of Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs should be ordered to furnish security for the defendants' legal costs in the pending action.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs' action is bona fide or amounts to vexatious, reckless, or abusive litigation.
  3. 3 Whether the court should exercise its discretion to stay the action pending provision of security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' action was reckless, vexatious, and amounted to an abuse of process. The plaintiffs failed to challenge previous judgments, including an eviction order and arbitration award, and their cause of action was unsustainable. The court exercised its discretion, as confirmed by precedent, to order the plaintiffs to furnish security for the defendants' legal costs. The action was stayed pending provision of security, and the plaintiffs were ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally.

Court Disposition

Application granted. Plaintiffs ordered to furnish security for costs. Action stayed pending provision of security. Plaintiffs to pay costs of application jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs are ordered to furnish security for the defendants' legal costs in their action.
  • The form, amount, and manner of security shall be determined by the Registrar on application by the defendants.