Rhodes University and Others v Zulu (1997/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 135 (17 December 2019)

Rhodes University and Others v Zulu (1997/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 135 (17 December 2019)

The court found that ordering the respondent to furnish security for costs would effectively deny her access to court, a right protected by section 34 of the Constitution. While the applicants suffer prejudice by being unable to recover costs, the respondent's inability to pay and the constitutional importance of her claim outweigh the applicants' interests. The court balanced the parties' interests and concluded that it would not be appropriate or just to deny the respondent the opportunity to have her dispute resolved in a public hearing. Accordingly, the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZAECGHC 135
Parties
Applicant: Rhodes University; Applicant: Rhodes University Appeals Review Committee; Applicant: Dr Stephen Fourie N.O.; Applicant: Tom Martin; Applicant: Dr Adele Moodly; Respondent: Yolanda Zulu
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 December 2019
Case Number
1997/2018
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Review Proceedings Pending Payment of Costs
Outcome
Application dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
NG Beshe
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Access to Court, Rule 47 Uniform Rules, Section 34 Constitution
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Security for Costs Access to Court Rule 47 Uniform Rules Section 34 Constitution

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

Parties

Rhodes University

Applicant

Rhodes University Appeals Review Committee

Applicant

Dr Stephen Fourie N.O.

Applicant

Tom Martin

Applicant

Dr Adele Moodly

Applicant

Yolanda Zulu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Stay Application / Interlocutory Application for Stay of Review Proceedings Pending Payment of Costs

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be ordered to furnish security for costs before proceeding with her review application.
  2. 2 Whether requiring security for costs would unjustifiably infringe the respondent's constitutional right of access to court under section 34.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' prejudice in recovering costs outweighs the respondent's right to pursue her claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that ordering the respondent to furnish security for costs would effectively deny her access to court, a right protected by section 34 of the Constitution. While the applicants suffer prejudice by being unable to recover costs, the respondent's inability to pay and the constitutional importance of her claim outweigh the applicants' interests. The court balanced the parties' interests and concluded that it would not be appropriate or just to deny the respondent the opportunity to have her dispute resolved in a public hearing. Accordingly, the application for security for costs was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application for security for costs is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.