Omar v Sakoor (18659/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 78 (9 April 2013)

Omar v Sakoor (18659/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 78 (9 April 2013)

The court held that the respondent, being an incola of the court, cannot be compelled to furnish security for costs. The application was further flawed because the respondent is impecunious and would not be able to pay the amount sought. Granting the order would deprive the respondent of her constitutional right of access to the courts as enshrined in section 34 of the Constitution. The application was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 78
Parties
Applicant: Zehir Omar; Respondent: Erica Miriam Sakoor
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2013
Case Number
18659/12
Procedural Posture
Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Van Oosten
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Rule 47, Access to Courts, Incola Status
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Security for Costs Rule 47 Access to Courts Incola Status

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

Parties

Zehir Omar

Applicant

Erica Miriam Sakoor

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Security for Costs Application / Application for Security for Costs Under Rule 47

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, as an incola of the court, can be compelled to furnish security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's impecuniosity and lack of assets justify an order for security for costs.
  3. 3 Whether granting the order would infringe the respondent's constitutional right of access to courts under section 34.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the respondent, being an incola of the court, cannot be compelled to furnish security for costs. The application was further flawed because the respondent is impecunious and would not be able to pay the amount sought. Granting the order would deprive the respondent of her constitutional right of access to the courts as enshrined in section 34 of the Constitution. The application was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the application.