Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Mafuyeka and Another v Netshitomboni and Others (24398/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 851 (29 August 2024)
The court granted joinder of Space Securitization (Pty) Ltd and dismissed an application to compel security for costs, finding non-compliance with Rule 47(1).
Miambo v Commissioner for South African Revenue Service (A27/2022) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 72 (29 November 2023)
Appeal against dismissal for failure to furnish security for costs succeeded, with the court ordering proper security and staying the action.
Smith v Parker Beusekom Partnership - Application for Leave to Appeal (773/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 382 (6 October 2023)
The High Court granted leave to appeal on a security for costs dispute after a respondent’s address changed to Israel during litigation.
A.C v G.R.P (10225/2013) [2023] ZAGPJHC 964 (25 August 2023)
The High Court struck an urgent application for security for costs from the roll, holding that the applicant failed to prove urgency under Rule 6(12)(b).
L.G v J.G (32377/2012) [2023] ZAGPJHC 450 (28 April 2023)
The High Court held that Uniform Rule 49(13) is peremptory and obliges an appellant to provide security for costs pending an appeal to the Full Court unless the respondent waives security or the appellant is released from the obligation by the court. The court rejected the respondent's argument that only the SCA can order security when it grants leave to appeal to the Full Court, finding that Rule 49(13) governs all Full Court appeals in the High Court, regardless of which court granted leave. The court interpreted Rule 49(13) and SCA Rule 9 harmoniously, concluding that SCA Rule 9 applies on…
Source excerpt
Legal Practice Council v Sampson and Others (2556/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 742 (6 October 2022)
The High Court dismissed a Rule 47(4) application for security for costs, finding the applicant was an incola and no vexatious abuse of process was shown.
Botha t/a Tax Consulting SA v Renwick (2019/35217) [2021] ZAGPJHC 37 (13 April 2021)
The court found that the plaintiff failed to provide a sufficiently full, reasonable, and bona fide explanation for the delay in bringing the security for costs application. The explanation offered was vague and unconvincing, and the plaintiff did not take the court into his confidence regarding his conduct and motives. Although the plaintiff had good prospects of success and the delay did not cause substantial prejudice to the defendant, these factors did not compensate for the failure to meet the requirements for condonation under Rule 27. Applying the weighting principle, the court exercis…
Source excerpt
Deltatex Holding Limited v Exxaro Coal (Pty) Ltd Limited and Others (166/2012) [2019] ZAGPPHC 172 (6 June 2019)
The court dismissed a challenge to a registrar’s security-for-costs order, refused condonation for a delayed PAJA review, and granted dismissal of the claim.
Omar v Sakoor (18659/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 78 (9 April 2013)
The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs, holding that an incola cannot be compelled to furnish security and that access to court would be undermined.
Alam v Minister of Home Affairs (3414/2010) [2012] ZAECPEHC 12; 2012 (5) SA 626 (ECP) (16 February 2012)
The court found that the plaintiff, pending the final determination of his application for judicial review of the refusal of asylum, is lawfully present in South Africa and has the intention to settle for an indefinite period. This satisfies the requirements for domicile under the Domicile Act, rendering him an incola and not a peregrinus. Even if the plaintiff were a peregrinus, the court would exercise its discretion to absolve him from furnishing security for costs, considering his vulnerable status as an asylum seeker, the nature of his claim against the State, and the constitutional righ…
Source excerpt
Explore more
