Meyer NO and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (70189/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 44 (23 February 2012)

Meyer NO and Another v ABSA Bank Ltd (70189/2010) [2012] ZAGPPHC 44 (23 February 2012)

The court held that the delivery of a second security by the defendant, after the registrar rejected the first, does not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30. The function of determining the sufficiency of security is reserved for the registrar, not the court. The rules do not prohibit the furnishing of further security where the initial security is found insufficient. The court found that a notice in respect of furnishing security is not an irregular step and that rectifying insufficient security is implied in the rule. Concerns about potential abuse by repeatedly furnishing insufficient security can be addressed by the plaintiff proceeding with summary judgment and raising abuse...

Citation
[2012] ZAGPPHC 44
Parties
Applicant: Michael Meyer N.O.; Applicant: Michael Meyer (JNR) N.O.; Respondent: ABSA Bank Limited
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 February 2012
Case Number
70189/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application Under Rule 30 to Set Aside Security as Irregular Step
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs to be costs in the summary judgment proceedings.
Judges
Goodey
Legal Topics
Summary Judgment, Irregular Step, Security for Judgment, Uniform Rules of Court
Civil Procedure Summary Judgment Irregular Step Security for Judgment Uniform Rules of Court

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Meyer N.O.

Applicant

Michael Meyer (JNR) N.O.

Applicant

ABSA Bank Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application Under Rule 30 to Set Aside Security as Irregular Step

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the delivery of a second security by the defendant in terms of Rule 32(3)(a) constitutes an irregular step under Rule 30.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant is permitted to furnish further security after the registrar has rejected the initial security.
  3. 3 Whether the court or the registrar is the proper authority to determine the sufficiency of security under Rule 32(3)(a).

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the delivery of a second security by the defendant, after the registrar rejected the first, does not constitute an irregular step under Rule 30. The function of determining the sufficiency of security is reserved for the registrar, not the court. The rules do not prohibit the furnishing of further security where the initial security is found insufficient. The court found that a notice in respect of furnishing security is not an irregular step and that rectifying insufficient security is implied in the rule. Concerns about potential abuse by repeatedly furnishing insufficient security can be addressed by the plaintiff proceeding with summary judgment and raising abuse...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs to be costs in the summary judgment proceedings.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Costs to be costs in the summary judgment proceedings.