Browns The Diamond Store CC V Van Zyl (717/2015)
Browns The Diamond Store CC V Van Zyl (717/2015) [2017] ZAGPJHC 70 (3 February 2017)
The court held that while movable property can, in principle, constitute adequate security for costs, the respondent failed to provide sufficient proof of ownership, value, and accessibility of the assets he claimed to possess in South Africa. The respondent's assertions regarding his movable assets, bank accounts, and shareholding in a deregistered corporation were unsupported by evidence and did not guarantee that the assets would be available for execution. The respondent also failed to disclose his financial position in the United Kingdom, undermining his claim of impecuniosity. The court…
Source excerpt
- Security For Costs
- Peregrinus And Incola
- Rule 47 Application
- Movable Property As Security