N and Another v D In re: D v N and Another (2018/16715) [2021] ZAGPJHC 428 (17 September 2021)

N and Another v D In re: D v N and Another (2018/16715) [2021] ZAGPJHC 428 (17 September 2021)

The court found that the respondent is a peregrinus, without assets or income in South Africa, and has failed to pay multiple taxed costs orders. His own admissions and conduct demonstrate that he is functionally bankrupt and a vexatious litigant. The applicants have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome, and the respondent's actions risk rendering any costs order unenforceable. The court held that considerations of fairness and equity require the granting of security for costs, as the prospects of the applicants recovering costs from the respondent are slim. The application for security for costs was granted, and the proceedings were stayed until compliance.

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 428
Parties
Applicant: STN; Applicant: HN; Respondent: MRMD
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 September 2021
Case Number
2018/16715
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(3), Opposed and Determined Before Main Variation Application.
Outcome
Application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed until security furnished.
Judges
Mudau
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Peregrinus, Vexatious Litigation, Rule 47 Application
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Peregrinus Vexatious Litigation Rule 47 Application

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 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

STN

Applicant

HN

Applicant

MRMD

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Interlocutory Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47(3), Opposed and Determined Before Main Variation Application.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, a peregrinus without assets in South Africa, should be ordered to furnish security for costs under Rule 47(3).
  2. 2 Whether the proceedings launched by the respondent should be stayed pending compliance with the security order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to vexatious litigation justifying security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent is a peregrinus, without assets or income in South Africa, and has failed to pay multiple taxed costs orders. His own admissions and conduct demonstrate that he is functionally bankrupt and a vexatious litigant. The applicants have a direct and substantial interest in the outcome, and the respondent's actions risk rendering any costs order unenforceable. The court held that considerations of fairness and equity require the granting of security for costs, as the prospects of the applicants recovering costs from the respondent are slim. The application for security for costs was granted, and the proceedings were stayed until compliance.

Court Disposition

Application for security for costs granted; proceedings stayed until security furnished.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to furnish security for the applicants' costs in the amount of R70,000.
  • The proceedings launched by the respondent are stayed until the security order is complied with.