Legal Practice Council v Sampson and Others (2556/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 742 (6 October 2022)

Legal Practice Council v Sampson and Others (2556/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 742 (6 October 2022)

The applicant is domiciled in South Africa and is therefore an incola, not a peregrinus. The general rule is that an incola will not be compelled to provide security for costs unless there is clear evidence of vexatious litigation or abuse of process. The first respondent failed to demonstrate that the applicant's...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 742
Parties
Applicant: Legal Practice Council; Respondent: Darren Sampson; Respondent: Department of Justice & Constitutional Development; Respondent: Rochelle Maistry
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 October 2022
Case Number
2556/2021
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(4)
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed.
Judges
C Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Vexatious Litigation, Rule 47, Rule 41a, Abuse of Process
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Vexatious Litigation Rule 47 Rule 41a Abuse of Process

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 4 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Legal Practice Council

Applicant

Darren Sampson

Respondent

Department of Justice & Constitutional Development

Respondent

Rochelle Maistry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(4)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant should be ordered to provide security for costs under Rule 47(4).
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's conduct amounts to vexatious litigation or abuse of court process.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is a peregrinus or incola for purposes of security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant is domiciled in South Africa and is therefore an incola, not a peregrinus. The general rule is that an incola will not be compelled to provide security for costs unless there is clear evidence of vexatious litigation or abuse of process. The first respondent failed to demonstrate that the applicant's claim is vexatious or that the applicant will be unable to pay costs if ordered. The applicant's failure to attend taxations is not relevant in the absence of a court order for costs. The interests of justice do not favour granting security for costs, as it would prejudice the applicant's ability to pursue its claim. Accordingly, the application for security for costs is dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.