Leloko Hartbeespoort Dam v Peppermans (838/2013) [2021] ZAGPPHC 307 (3 May 2021)

Leloko Hartbeespoort Dam v Peppermans (838/2013) [2021] ZAGPPHC 307 (3 May 2021)

The court found that Mr Peppermans, although a peregrinus, maintains a business and assets in South Africa, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that recovery of costs would be impossible or unduly difficult. The application for security for costs was brought with considerable and unexplained delay, which weighed against granting the relief. The court was not persuaded that the respondent's claim was mala fide or that the application was not being used to stifle a genuine claim. The discretion afforded to the court, considering equity and fairness, led to the conclusion that Mr Peppermans should be absolved from furnishing security for costs. The application was dismissed, and costs...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 307
Parties
Applicant: Leloko Hartbeespoort Dam Association; Respondent: Phillip Peppermans
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 May 2021
Case Number
838/2013
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47, Post Liability Judgment, Pending Quantum Trial
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed. Costs awarded against applicant, excluding costs occasioned by late filing of supplementary affidavit.
Judges
H G A Snyman
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus, Judicial Discretion, Delay in Application, Quantum of Damages
Civil Procedure Delict Security for Costs Peregrinus Judicial Discretion Delay in Application Quantum of Damages

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Leloko Hartbeespoort Dam Association

Applicant

Phillip Peppermans

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47, Post Liability Judgment, Pending Quantum Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, a peregrinus, should be ordered to furnish security for costs for the pending quantum trial.
  2. 2 Whether the delay of over six years in bringing the application for security for costs should bar the applicant from obtaining such relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's business interests and assets in South Africa and Australia sufficiently safeguard the applicant's potential cost recovery.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Mr Peppermans, although a peregrinus, maintains a business and assets in South Africa, and the applicant failed to demonstrate that recovery of costs would be impossible or unduly difficult. The application for security for costs was brought with considerable and unexplained delay, which weighed against granting the relief. The court was not persuaded that the respondent's claim was mala fide or that the application was not being used to stifle a genuine claim. The discretion afforded to the court, considering equity and fairness, led to the conclusion that Mr Peppermans should be absolved from furnishing security for costs. The application was dismissed, and costs...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed. Costs awarded against applicant, excluding costs occasioned by late filing of supplementary affidavit.

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent’s costs, excluding the costs occasioned by the late filing of the supplementary affidavit.