Malomini Strategists (Pty) Ltd and Another v Amanda (A292/2021;49110/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 670 (15 September 2022)

Malomini Strategists (Pty) Ltd and Another v Amanda (A292/2021;49110/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 670 (15 September 2022)

The court found that the appellant was exercising her statutory right to appeal under section 195(7) of the Companies Act and that there was no evidence that her conduct was vexatious, reckless, or amounted to an abuse of process. The mere fact that she may not be able to satisfy a potential costs order is insufficient to justify an order for security for costs. The transfer of funds from the company account to her attorneys, while questionable, does not establish an inability to pay costs nor does it justify the order sought. The application for security for costs was not brought within an unreasonable time, but the grounds advanced by the applicants do not meet the threshold for...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 670
Parties
Applicant: Malomini Strategists (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mohlamonyane Klaas Tala; Respondent: Nxumalo Bhekiwe Amanda; Respondent: Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC); Respondent: The Companies Tribunal of South Africa; Respondent: Sikhitha Lindelani N.O.
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 September 2022
Case Number
A292/2021;49110/2021
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal
Outcome
Application for security for costs dismissed with costs.
Judges
Neukircher
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Companies Act Appeal, Rule 47 Application, Abuse of Process, Director Removal
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Companies Act Appeal Rule 47 Application Abuse of Process Director Removal

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 5 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Malomini Strategists (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mohlamonyane Klaas Tala

Applicant

Nxumalo Bhekiwe Amanda

Respondent

Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC)

Respondent

The Companies Tribunal of South Africa

Respondent

Sikhitha Lindelani N.O.

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs Pending Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant should be ordered to provide security for costs in terms of Rule 47 pending her appeal against the Companies Tribunal decision.
  2. 2 Whether the appeal is vexatious, reckless, or an abuse of process justifying security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant's conduct in transferring company funds post-tribunal order affects her liability for security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the appellant was exercising her statutory right to appeal under section 195(7) of the Companies Act and that there was no evidence that her conduct was vexatious, reckless, or amounted to an abuse of process. The mere fact that she may not be able to satisfy a potential costs order is insufficient to justify an order for security for costs. The transfer of funds from the company account to her attorneys, while questionable, does not establish an inability to pay costs nor does it justify the order sought. The application for security for costs was not brought within an unreasonable time, but the grounds advanced by the applicants do not meet the threshold for...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed with costs.