September and Another v Muddford International Services Ltd; In Re: Muddford International Services Ltd v Metal And Engineering Services Ltd and Others (C664/2006) [2007] ZALCCT 6 (28 November 2007)
The court found that the applicants, as incola parties, are entitled to claim security for costs and for the compensation awarded in their favour, given that the respondent is a peregrinus domiciled abroad. The delay in bringing the application was not sufficient to justify dismissal, as the substantive hearing of the review application was still pending and the respondent did not demonstrate real prejudice. The court exercised its discretion to order security for both costs and compensation, considering the applicants' limited means and the risk that the award would be rendered unenforceable if security was not provided. The quantum of security for costs was set at R50,000 as fair and...
- Citation
- [2007] ZALCCT 6
- Parties
- Applicant: Sedick September; Applicant: Mogamat Karriem; Respondent: Muddford International Services Limited; Respondent: Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council; Respondent: Commissioner Suzanna Harvey
- Court
- Labour Court Cape Town
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 28 November 2007
- Case Number
- C664/2006
- Procedural Posture
- Stay Application / Application to Compel Respondent to Furnish Security for Costs and Compensation Pending Review
- Outcome
- Application granted: respondent ordered to provide security for costs and compensation award.
- Judges
- Denzil Potgieter
- Legal Topics
- Security for Costs, Peregrinus and Incola, Compensation Award, Review of Arbitration, Discretionary Powers
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Sedick September
Applicant
Mogamat Karriem
Applicant
Muddford International Services Limited
Respondent
Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council
Respondent
Commissioner Suzanna Harvey
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Stay Application / Application to Compel Respondent to Furnish Security for Costs and Compensation Pending Review
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent, as a peregrinus, should be compelled to furnish security for the applicants' costs in the pending review application.
- 2 Whether the respondent should be ordered to provide security for the compensation awarded to the applicants by the arbitrator.
- 3 Whether the delay in bringing the application for security for costs justifies its dismissal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the applicants, as incola parties, are entitled to claim security for costs and for the compensation awarded in their favour, given that the respondent is a peregrinus domiciled abroad. The delay in bringing the application was not sufficient to justify dismissal, as the substantive hearing of the review application was still pending and the respondent did not demonstrate real prejudice. The court exercised its discretion to order security for both costs and compensation, considering the applicants' limited means and the risk that the award would be rendered unenforceable if security was not provided. The quantum of security for costs was set at R50,000 as fair and...
Court Disposition
Application granted: respondent ordered to provide security for costs and compensation award.
Orders
- Respondent is ordered to provide security in the amount of R50,000 in respect of applicants' costs in the pending review application instituted under case number C664/2006.
- Respondent is ordered to provide security for payment of the compensation awarded in favour of applicants in the sum of US$14,994.00.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment