South Africa Case Law

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Trade Rose Investments (Pvt) Ltd (13662/22)

BP Southern Africa (Pty) Ltd v Trade Rose Investments (Pvt) Ltd (13662/22) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1206 (18 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

13662/22

Judge

Vally

The court found that Trade Rose Investments (Pvt) Ltd, as a peregrinus, failed to provide credible evidence of its ability to satisfy any adverse costs order. Its current pleading was weak and likely to be met with an exception for failing to disclose a cause of action. While BP and Turner sought R2 million each as security, the court held that such an amount would unjustly bar Trade Rose from accessing the courts, contrary to section 34 of the Constitution. A more appropriate amount was determined to be R200,000 for each applicant, sufficient to cover the costs of an exception. The action ag…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Duty Of Care
• Exception To Pleading

Schleyer and Another v Marschall (2020/819)

Schleyer and Another v Marschall (2020/819) [2021] ZAGPPHC 540 (19 August 2021)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2020/819

Judge

Nochumsohn

The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs by incola defendants against a German peregrinus, finding no basis to order security.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Immovable Property Valuation
• Execution Against Property
• Security-for-costs
• Peregrinus-and-incola

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)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

717/2015

Judge

Kathree-Setiloane

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

Futura Footwear Ltd v Salomon S.A.S (5459/2011)

Futura Footwear Ltd v Salomon S.A.S (5459/2011) [2012] ZAKZDHC 68; 2012 BIP 169 (KZD) (30 October 2012)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

5459/2011

Judge

M Pillemer

The High Court ordered a French peregrine plaintiff to furnish security for costs and refused an adjournment sought to file more evidence.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Judicial Discretion
• Adjournment Application
• Security-for-costs
• Peregrinus-and-incola

Exploitatie- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Argonauten 11BV and Another v Honig (649/2010)

Exploitatie- en Beleggingsmaatschappij Argonauten 11BV and Another v Honig (649/2010) [2011] ZASCA 182; 2012 (1) SA 247 (SCA); [2012] 2 All SA 22 (SCA) (30 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

649/2010

Judges

Mthiyane, Van Heerden, Bosielo, Leach, Meer

The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an order for additional security for costs in a sequestration dispute, finding no undue delay and dismissing the appeal.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Sequestration Proceedings
• Court Discretion
• Delay In Application
• Security-for-costs

Exploitatie en Beleggingsmaatschaapij-Argonauten II BV en Ander v Honig en Ander (7180/08)

Exploitatie en Beleggingsmaatschaapij-Argonauten II BV en Ander v Honig en Ander (7180/08) [2010] ZAWCHC 152 (31 May 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

7180/08

Judge

Davis

The High Court dismissed leave to appeal against an order requiring security for costs, finding no basis to interfere with its earlier discretion.

• Security For Costs
• Rule 47
• Judicial Discretion
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Costs Awards
• Security-for-costs

Brits and Another v Mahon and Others (4764/2009)

Brits and Another v Mahon and Others (4764/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 150 (21 September 2009)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

4764/2009

Judge

K J Moloi

The High Court refused to order a peregrinus respondent to furnish security for costs in interpleader proceedings arising after execution and attachment.

• Security For Costs
• Interpleader Proceedings
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Common Law Discretion
• Security-for-costs
• Interpleader-proceedings

Silvercraft Helicopters (Switzerland) Ltd and Another v Zonnnekus Mansion (Pty) Ltd, Silvercraft Helicopters Ltd and Another v Executive Helicopters (Pty) Ltd and Others; Antares International Ltd and Another v Executive Helicopters (Pty) Ltd and Others (11418/2007,14624/2007, 16340/2007)

Silvercraft Helicopters (Switzerland) Ltd and Another v Zonnnekus Mansion (Pty) Ltd, Silvercraft Helicopters Ltd and Another v Executive Helicopters (Pty) Ltd and Others; Antares International Ltd and Another v Executive Helicopters (Pty) Ltd and Others (11418/2007,14624/2007, 16340/2007) [2008] ZAWCHC 119; 2009 (5) SA 602 (C) (27 October 2008)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

11418/2007,14624/2007,16340/2007

Judge

S Olivier

The court held that while there is an established practice permitting the ordering of security for costs from peregrinus plaintiffs, this is a matter of judicial discretion and not a substantive rule. The court found that ordering security for the full value of the claims in reconvention would be unjust and could amount to a denial of justice, especially where the plaintiffs reside in countries with established legal systems. Instead, the court ordered security for the costs of the claims in reconvention, not for their full value. Regarding the contempt proceedings, the court found no princip…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Claims In Reconvention
• Contempt Of Court
• Judicial Discretion
• Attachment Orders

September and Another v Muddford International Services Ltd; In Re: Muddford International Services Ltd v Metal And Engineering Services Ltd and Others (C664/2006)

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)

Court

Labour Court Cape Town

Case number

C664/2006

Judge

Denzil Potgieter

The Labour Court ordered a foreign respondent to furnish security for costs and for a compensation award, finding no sufficient prejudice from the delayed application.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Compensation Award
• Review Of Arbitration
• Discretionary Powers
• Security-for-costs

September v Muddford International Services Limited; Muddford International Services Limited v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (C664/2006)

September v Muddford International Services Limited; Muddford International Services Limited v Metal and Engineering Industries Bargaining Council and Others (C664/2006) [2007] ZALC 100; (2008) 29 ILJ 1049 (LC) (28 November 2007)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

C664/2006

Judge

D Potgieter

The Labour Court ordered a foreign respondent to furnish security for costs and for a compensation award, finding the delay in bringing the application not fatal.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus And Incola
• Compensation Award
• Review Of Arbitration Award
• Security-for-costs
• Peregrinus