Mare v Plettenberg Bay / Bitou Municipality and Others (12478/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 61 (29 October 2008)

Mare v Plettenberg Bay / Bitou Municipality and Others (12478/2008) [2008] ZAWCHC 61 (29 October 2008)

The court found that the third defendant was properly authorised to instruct attorneys and bring the application for security for costs on behalf of the municipality. The plaintiff's point in limine regarding locus standi was rejected. On the merits, the court held that the plaintiff is impecunious but this alone...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2008] ZAWCHC 61
Parties
Plaintiff: Elmarie Maré; Defendant: Plettenberg Bay / Bitou Municipality; Defendant: M K Leluma; Defendant: C L Mvimbi; Defendant: L Luiters; Defendant: N M Sishuba; Defendant: T M Nqolo; Defendant: E V M Wildeman
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 October 2008
Case Number
12478/2008
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(1)
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted in part; refused in respect of sexual harassment and assault claim, granted in respect of claims against third to seventh defendants and unfair dismissal claims.
Judges
Moosa
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Unfair Dismissal, Sexual Harassment, Prescription Act, Locus Standi
Civil Procedure Labour Law Security for Costs Unfair Dismissal Sexual Harassment Prescription Act Locus Standi

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 5 Authorities cited 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elmarie Maré

Plaintiff

Plettenberg Bay / Bitou Municipality

Defendant

M K Leluma

Defendant

C L Mvimbi

Defendant

L Luiters

Defendant

N M Sishuba

Defendant

T M Nqolo

Defendant

E V M Wildeman

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff should be ordered to furnish security for costs to the defendants.
  2. 2 Whether the first defendant had locus standi to defend the action and bring the application.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff's claims for unfair dismissal and sexual harassment are frivolous or prescribed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the third defendant was properly authorised to instruct attorneys and bring the application for security for costs on behalf of the municipality. The plaintiff's point in limine regarding locus standi was rejected. On the merits, the court held that the plaintiff is impecunious but this alone does not justify security for costs; additional factors must be considered. The claims against third to seventh defendants and the unfair dismissal claim against first and second defendants were found to be frivolous, either lacking legal basis or having been settled. The sexual harassment and assault claim against first and second defendants was not barred by prescription at...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted in part; refused in respect of sexual harassment and assault claim, granted in respect of claims against third to seventh defendants and unfair dismissal claims.

Orders

  • The application of first and second defendants for plaintiff to furnish security for costs in respect of her sexual harassment and assault claim is refused.
  • Plaintiff is directed to furnish security for costs of third to seventh defendants in an amount and form to be determined by the Registrar.