Jeanru Konstruksie (Pty) Ltd v Botes [2023] ZAGPPHC 421; 2023 (6) SA 305 (GP) (30 May 2023)

Jeanru Konstruksie (Pty) Ltd v Botes [2023] ZAGPPHC 421; 2023 (6) SA 305 (GP) (30 May 2023)

The court found that Rule 49(13) is procedural in nature and validly promulgated under the Rules Board's powers, as the requirement for security for costs on appeal is sourced in the High Court's inherent and constitutional powers to regulate its own processes. The appellant failed to furnish the required security and did not obtain a release from the obligation from the court that granted leave to appeal. This failure rendered the prosecution of the appeal, specifically the obtaining of a hearing date, irregular. The argument that Rule 49(13) was ultra vires was rejected, as the source for the requirement exists in the common law and the Constitution, not solely in statutory provisions....

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 421
Parties
Applicant: Jeanru Konstruksie (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jaco Stefan Botes
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 May 2023
Case Number
A304/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Set Aside the Hearing Date for Appeal Due to Irregular Proceedings
Outcome
The application to set aside the hearing date for the appeal was granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.
Judges
N Davis
Legal Topics
Security for Costs on Appeal, Rule 49 13 Interpretation, Procedural Irregularity, Ultra Vires Argument
Civil Procedure Security for Costs on Appeal Rule 49 13 Interpretation Procedural Irregularity Ultra Vires Argument

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jeanru Konstruksie (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jaco Stefan Botes

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Set Aside the Hearing Date for Appeal Due to Irregular Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant's failure to furnish security for costs in terms of Rule 49(13) renders the prosecution of the appeal irregular.
  2. 2 Whether Rule 49(13) was promulgated ultra vires the powers of the Rules Board and is therefore invalid.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court has inherent and constitutional powers to require security for costs on appeal.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Rule 49(13) is procedural in nature and validly promulgated under the Rules Board's powers, as the requirement for security for costs on appeal is sourced in the High Court's inherent and constitutional powers to regulate its own processes. The appellant failed to furnish the required security and did not obtain a release from the obligation from the court that granted leave to appeal. This failure rendered the prosecution of the appeal, specifically the obtaining of a hearing date, irregular. The argument that Rule 49(13) was ultra vires was rejected, as the source for the requirement exists in the common law and the Constitution, not solely in statutory provisions....

Court Disposition

The application to set aside the hearing date for the appeal was granted. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.

Orders

  • The application by the respondent in this application (the appellant in the appeal in case no: A304/21) for a date for hearing of the appeal is set aside as being irregular.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application.