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

Smith v Parker Beusekom Partnership (773/2021)

Smith v Parker Beusekom Partnership (773/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 11 (23 January 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

773/2021

Judge

Mhlambi

The court dismissed an application for security for costs under Rule 47, finding delay in bringing it and sufficient assets to protect the applicant.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Judicial Discretion
• Delay In Application
• Security-for-costs

Sampson v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (34976/21)

Sampson v Department of Justice and Constitutional Development and Others (34976/21) [2022] ZAGPPHC 341 (20 May 2022)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34976/21

Judge

E van der Schyff

The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs, finding it incoherent, premature, and unsupported by Rule 47 procedure or a proper basis.

• Security For Costs
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Costs In The Cause
• Security-for-costs
• Rule-47
• Costs-in-the-cause

Rhodes University and Others v Zulu (1997/2018)

Rhodes University and Others v Zulu (1997/2018) [2019] ZAECGHC 135 (17 December 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown

Case number

1997/2018

Judge

NG Beshe

The High Court refused to stay a student’s review application pending security for costs, holding that it would unjustifiably limit access to court.

• Security For Costs
• Access To Court
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Section 34 Constitution
• Security-for-costs
• Access-to-court

Chunnett v Roytblat (51541/2013)

Chunnett v Roytblat (51541/2013) [2016] ZAGPPHC 800 (6 September 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

51541/2013

Judge

S P Mothle

The High Court ordered a peregrinus respondent to provide security for costs in two related actions, finding R200,000 per action fair and reasonable.

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus Litigation
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Attachment Of Property
• Security-for-costs
• Peregrinus-litigation

Sivraj v Caspian Freight CC (AR652/12)

Sivraj v Caspian Freight CC (AR652/12) [2014] ZAKZPHC 24 (13 May 2014)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

AR652/12

Judges

Steyn, Moodley, Mbatha

High Court appeal reversed an order requiring an incola appellant to furnish security for costs, finding no exceptional basis for the order.

• Security For Costs
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Inherent Jurisdiction
• Abuse Of Process
• Access To Court
• Costs Orders

SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd v Moodliar NO and Others (5255/2006)

SA Truck Bodies (Pty) Ltd v Moodliar NO and Others (5255/2006) [2010] ZAWCHC 13 (11 February 2010)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

5255/2006

Judge

Freund

The applicant established, by credible testimony and respondents' admission, that the liquidators will be unable to pay costs if unsuccessful. The court weighed the injustice to the applicant of being exposed to irrecoverable costs against the potential prejudice to the respondents if security is ordered. The respondents failed to provide evidence of attempts to raise funds for security and were unforthcoming about litigation funding. Although there was delay in bringing the application, the court found it not materially prejudicial given the overlap of issues in the withdrawn and pending act…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Companies Act Section 13
• Liquidation
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Access To Court
• Balancing Of Equities

Giddey NO v JC Barnard and Partners (CCT65/05)

Giddey NO v JC Barnard and Partners (CCT65/05) [2006] ZACC 13; 2007 (5) SA 525 (CC); 2007 (2) BCLR 125 (CC) (1 September 2006)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT65/05

Judges

O'Regan, Langa, Moseneke, Madala, Mokgoro, Nkabinde, Sachs, Skweyiya, Van der Westhuizen, Yacoob

The Constitutional Court held that the discretion conferred by section 13 of the Companies Act to order security for costs must be exercised with due regard to the right of access to court under section 34 of the Constitution. However, section 13 is not unconstitutional and does not require a court to refuse security merely because it may terminate litigation. The balancing exercise requires consideration of the potential injustice to both parties, including whether the plaintiff has attempted to secure financial support and whether the defendant's conduct caused the plaintiff's financial dif…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Right Of Access To Court
• Companies Act Section 13
• Judicial Discretion
• Rule 47 Uniform Rules
• Constitutional Limitation