Matemeku Petroleum (PTY) Ltd v Shell Downstream SA (PTY) Ltd and Another In re: Shell Downstream SA (PTY) Ltd and Another v Matemeku Petroleum (PTY) Ltd (22196/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 503 (2 August 2022)

Matemeku Petroleum (PTY) Ltd v Shell Downstream SA (PTY) Ltd and Another In re: Shell Downstream SA (PTY) Ltd and Another v Matemeku Petroleum (PTY) Ltd (22196/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 503 (2 August 2022)

The court found that the respondent failed to satisfy the judgment debt and did not present evidence of the importance of the review application to rebut the suggestion that it is vexatious or an abuse of process. The respondent is an incola company but is impecunious and owns no assets. The review application was...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 503
Parties
Applicant: Matemeku Petroleum (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Shell Downstream SA (PTY) Ltd; Respondent: Advocate Garth Hulley SC N.O
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 August 2022
Case Number
22196/2019
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs Pending Review
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted. Main application stayed pending provision of security.
Judges
Mahalelo
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Vexatious Litigation, Review of Arbitral Award, Stay of Proceedings
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Security for Costs Vexatious Litigation Review of Arbitral Award Stay of Proceedings

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

Parties

Matemeku Petroleum (PTY) Ltd

Applicant

Shell Downstream SA (PTY) Ltd

Respondent

Advocate Garth Hulley SC N.O

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Application for Security for Costs Pending Review

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs in terms of Rule 47(1) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's review application is vexatious, reckless, or an abuse of process.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's financial status and prospects of success justify an order for security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent failed to satisfy the judgment debt and did not present evidence of the importance of the review application to rebut the suggestion that it is vexatious or an abuse of process. The respondent is an incola company but is impecunious and owns no assets. The review application was unduly delayed and lacks prospects of success. The applicant demonstrated that considerations of fairness and equity favour the granting of security for costs. The court held that refusing the applicant's right to claim security would result in injustice. Accordingly, the respondent is ordered to provide security for costs, with the nature, form, and amount to be determined by...

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted. Main application stayed pending provision of security.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to provide the first applicant with security for costs in the review application, with the nature, form, and amount to be determined by the Registrar.
  • Pending provision of security, the main application is stayed until such time as security is provided as ordered.