Zietsman v Electronic Media Network Ltd. and Others (11/07) [2008] ZASCA 4; [2008] 2 All SA 523 (SCA); 2008 (4) SA 1 (SCA); 2008 BIP 1 (SCA) (7 March 2008)

Zietsman v Electronic Media Network Ltd. and Others (11/07) [2008] ZASCA 4; [2008] 2 All SA 523 (SCA); 2008 (4) SA 1 (SCA); 2008 BIP 1 (SCA) (7 March 2008)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 17(2)(a) of the Patents Act must be interpreted to include incola plaintiffs, and the Commissioner has discretion to order security for costs against any party. The appellant had agreed to provide security to the third respondent, with only the quantum in dispute, and the court a quo correctly ordered security in the amount of R250,000 for the third respondent. However, regarding the first and second respondents, the court a quo failed to exercise its discretion properly, as it did not consider all relevant factors, including the absence of any disclosed defence by the respondents and the appellant's status as an incola natural person. The...

Citation
[2008] ZASCA 4
Parties
Appellant: David Wallace Zietsman; Respondent: Electronic Media Network Limited; Respondent: Multichoice Africa (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Vodacom (Pty) Limited
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 March 2008
Case Number
11/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs and Costs Orders
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part and dismissed in part. Security for costs to first and second respondents set aside; security for costs to third respondent confirmed; costs orders varied.
Judges
Streicher, Nugent, Heher, Hurt, Snyders
Legal Topics
Security for Costs, Patents Act Section 17, Constitutional Right of Access, Discretion in Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Intellectual Property Security for Costs Patents Act Section 17 Constitutional Right of Access Discretion in Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Wallace Zietsman

Appellant

Electronic Media Network Limited

Respondent

Multichoice Africa (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Vodacom (Pty) Limited

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Order for Security for Costs and Costs Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether section 17(2)(a) of the Patents Act empowers the Commissioner to order an incola plaintiff to furnish security for costs.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant was liable to furnish security to the third respondent based on agreement.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant should be ordered to furnish security to the first and second respondents under section 17(2).

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that section 17(2)(a) of the Patents Act must be interpreted to include incola plaintiffs, and the Commissioner has discretion to order security for costs against any party. The appellant had agreed to provide security to the third respondent, with only the quantum in dispute, and the court a quo correctly ordered security in the amount of R250,000 for the third respondent. However, regarding the first and second respondents, the court a quo failed to exercise its discretion properly, as it did not consider all relevant factors, including the absence of any disclosed defence by the respondents and the appellant's status as an incola natural person. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part and dismissed in part. Security for costs to first and second respondents set aside; security for costs to third respondent confirmed; costs orders varied.

Orders

  • The appellant's appeal against the order directing him to furnish security to the first and second respondents and to pay their costs is upheld with costs.
  • The appellant's appeal against the order directing him to provide security in the amount of R250,000 to the third respondent is dismissed.