South Africa Case Law

Single Destination Engineering (Pty) Ltd Another v Van Heever NO and Others (42818/2021)

Single Destination Engineering (Pty) Ltd Another v Van Heever NO and Others (42818/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 980 (31 August 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

42818/2021

Judge

MIA

The court found that the respondents, as applicants in the intervention application, are peregrini with funds located in Australia, making recovery of costs difficult for the applicants. The court considered all relevant factors, including the inconvenience and expense of enforcing a costs order abroad, and applied the principles set out in Mystic River and Shepstone & Wylie. The respondents did not contest the quantum of security, only their liability, and failed to demonstrate that the court had taken into account irrelevant considerations or applied incorrect legal principles. The court he…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Vs Incola
• Leave To Appeal
• Judicial Discretion

N.H obo E.R.H v Schindlers Lifts SA (Pty) Limited and Another (7914/2018)

N.H obo E.R.H v Schindlers Lifts SA (Pty) Limited and Another (7914/2018) [2020] ZAKZDHC 41 (1 September 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

7914/2018

Judge

Vahed

The court held that the starting point is that a peregrinus should furnish security for costs, and this is unaffected by Magida. The representative capacity of the plaintiff is irrelevant to the obligation to provide security. The plaintiff failed to provide cogent evidence that she or her family could not provide security. The settlement with the second defendant demonstrated that the plaintiff could raise some funds. The first defendant's offer of R350,000 as security was reasonable and within the plaintiff's reach. The court exercised its discretion to order the plaintiff to provide securi…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Vs Incola
• Judicial Discretion
• Representative Capacity
• Enforcement Of Costs Orders

Matthews N.O and Others v Thyne N.O and Others (20714/17)

Matthews N.O and Others v Thyne N.O and Others (20714/17) [2018] ZAGPPHC 30 (16 February 2018)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

20714/17

Judge

N.M MAVUNDLA

The court found that although the third to sixth plaintiffs are peregrines residing in Australia, the second plaintiff possesses substantial assets and business interests in South Africa, including unencumbered immovable property and significant shareholding in local companies. The plaintiffs are jointly and severally liable for any adverse costs order, and the second plaintiff's assets provide sufficient assurance that costs can be recovered locally. The action brought by the plaintiffs was bona fide, aimed at recovering trust assets allegedly misappropriated by the sixth defendant, and not…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Vs Incola
• Trust Dispute
• Joint And Several Liability
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Exercise Of Judicial Discretion

Dix v Calzanetto Sociedad Limitada (15353/2017)

Dix v Calzanetto Sociedad Limitada (15353/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 303 (19 October 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

15353/2017

Judge

Van der Linde

The High Court ordered a Spanish company, as peregrinus, to furnish security for costs in South African litigation, finding its South African asset claim unproven.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Vs Incola
• Trade Mark Infringement
• Discretion In Strict Sense
• Security-for-costs
• Peregrinus-vs-incola

Dinos and Another v Agro V.I.M SA and Another (08284/14)

Dinos and Another v Agro V.I.M SA and Another (08284/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 72 (29 January 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

08284/14

Judge

Windell

The court held that the general rule requires a peregrinus to provide security for costs to an incola, especially where the incola would face uncertainty and inconvenience in enforcing a costs order abroad. The first respondent did not allege impecuniosity or hardship in furnishing security and, in fact, confirmed its financial ability to do so. No facts justified deviation from the general rule, and the court was not persuaded to exercise its discretion in favour of the first respondent. Accordingly, the application for security for costs was granted.

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Vs Incola
• Court Discretion
• Costs Order Enforcement