Parker Beusekom Partnership v Smith (A159/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 259 (30 August 2024)

Parker Beusekom Partnership v Smith (A159/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 259 (30 August 2024)

The court found that Smith is no longer a peregrinus, as he resides in South Africa, albeit outside the Free State jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Superior Courts Act prohibits demanding security for costs solely because a plaintiff resides outside the jurisdiction but within the Republic. The evidence adduced on appeal was admitted, as its relevance arose only after the judgment a quo and it was undisputed. The appeal was rendered moot by Smith's change of residence, and there was no practical effect to granting the relief sought by the appellant. The partnership persisted with the appeal despite being forewarned, and costs should follow the result. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2024] ZAFSHC 259
Parties
Appellant: Parker Beusekom Partnership; Respondent: Shaun Smith
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2024
Case Number
A159/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Security for Costs; Application to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; application to adduce further evidence on appeal granted with no order as to costs.
Judges
Musi JP, Opperman J, Daniso J
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Mootness, Adducing Further Evidence on Appeal, Peregrinus, Superior Courts Act, Rule 47 Procedure
Civil Procedure Security for Costs Mootness Adducing Further Evidence on Appeal Peregrinus Superior Courts Act Rule 47 Procedure

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parker Beusekom Partnership

Appellant

Shaun Smith

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Dismissal of Application for Security for Costs; Application to Adduce Further Evidence on Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent, now residing in South Africa but outside the court's jurisdiction, is required to furnish security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the application to adduce further evidence on appeal should be granted.
  3. 3 Whether the appeal has become moot due to the respondent's change of residence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Smith is no longer a peregrinus, as he resides in South Africa, albeit outside the Free State jurisdiction. Section 25 of the Superior Courts Act prohibits demanding security for costs solely because a plaintiff resides outside the jurisdiction but within the Republic. The evidence adduced on appeal was admitted, as its relevance arose only after the judgment a quo and it was undisputed. The appeal was rendered moot by Smith's change of residence, and there was no practical effect to granting the relief sought by the appellant. The partnership persisted with the appeal despite being forewarned, and costs should follow the result. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; application to adduce further evidence on appeal granted with no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application to adduce evidence on appeal is granted with no order as to costs.
  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.