Glencore International AG v Atakas Ticaret Ve Nakliyat As and Others (A42/2014) [2025] ZAKZDHC 4 (13 January 2025)
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Case number
A42/2014
Judge
Sibiya AJ
The High Court ordered Atakas to provide R1.2 million security for Glencore’s costs, stayed the action until compliance, and rejected any alleged agreement on the guarantee form.
Minmetals Logistics Zhejiang Co Ltd v The Owners and Underwriters of the MV Smart and Another (573/2023) [2024] ZASCA 129; [2025] 1 All SA 60 (SCA); 2025 (1) SA 392 (SCA) (1 October 2024)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
573/2023
Judges
Ponnan, Dambuza, Mocumie, Nicholls, Koen
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a peregrinus could be joined under s 5(1) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act, but the joinder order was not appealable.
Parker Beusekom Partnership v Smith (A159/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 259 (30 August 2024)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
A159/2023
Judges
Musi JP, Opperman J, Daniso J
The court allowed further evidence on appeal, found the appeal moot after the respondent returned to South Africa, and dismissed the appeal with costs.
J.M v N.C (2023/00100) [2024] ZAGPJHC 762 (16 August 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/00100
Judge
N.J. Graves
The court found that the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of domicile or residence in South Africa. Her assertions were unsupported, contradicted by her own communications, and lacked necessary detail regarding her employment, marital status, and family circumstances. The redacted visa did not substantiate her claim of temporary residence in the USA, and her failure to disclose relevant facts undermined her credibility. The applicant discharged the burden of proving that the respondent is not an incola of South Africa, and thus a peregrinus. The reconsideration application was d…
Gross v D.M (2021/43212) [2024] ZAGPJHC 767; 2025 (2) SA 172 (GJ) (6 August 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2021/43212
Judge
Windell
High Court dismissed a peregrinus jurisdiction exception in a divorce action, holding the pleaded constitutional challenge and common-law development claim raised a triable issue.
Redpath Africa Limited v Siyakhula Sonke Empowerment Corporation Proprietary Limited and Others (55896/2021,2023/007449) [2024] ZAGPJHC 766 (31 July 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
55896/2021,2023/007449
Judge
ML Senyatsi
The High Court dismissed a security-for-costs application, finding a tender of adequate security had been made and that the continued pursuit of the application was abusive.
Montcommerce v Murray and Roberts Limited (020727/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 402 (12 March 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
020727/2023
Judge
Maier-Frawley
The High Court dismissed a defendant’s application for security for costs, holding that foreign peregrinus status alone is not enough without a factual basis for inability to pay.
I.N.P v N.P (9117/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 210 (28 July 2023)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
9117/2023
Judge
Van Zyl
The court found that the respondent is permanently resident in Portugal and is a foreign peregrinus. The funds and property in question are located outside South Africa, and the acts sought to be interdicted would occur in foreign jurisdictions. The court held that it does not have jurisdiction to grant interdictory relief against a respondent who is neither resident nor domiciled within its jurisdiction, and where the subject matter of the relief is situated abroad. The respondent's submission to jurisdiction in the divorce action does not extend to separate proceedings for interdicts instit…
Mystic River Investments 45 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Zayeed Paruk Incorporated and Others (432/2022) [2023] ZASCA 54; 2023 (4) SA 500 (SCA) (19 April 2023)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
432/2022
Judges
Van der Merwe, Schippers, Gorven, Matojane, Kathree-Setiloane
The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the high court erred by applying a wrong principle, namely a predisposition that a peregrinus is obliged to furnish security for costs when demanded by an incola. The correct approach is a balancing exercise considering fairness and equity for both parties. The second appellant, a peregrinus with no assets in South Africa, involved himself in the litigation for personal benefit. If security is not ordered and the main application fails, the respondents would face inconvenience, delay, and additional costs in enforcing a cost order abroad. The second appe…
