South Africa Case Law

Lekalakala v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (19753/2019)

Lekalakala v Transnet SOC Limited and Others (19753/2019) [2025] ZAGPJHC 340 (3 April 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

19753/2019

Judge

Mahomed

The court found that the respondent's repeated institution of recission applications on substantially the same grounds, his failure to provide a valid address for execution of cost orders, and his evasive conduct amounted to vexatious litigation and an abuse of process. The applicants, as a public entity, are entitled to protection from such conduct, especially where public funds are at stake. The respondent's explanations for delay and change of address were unconvincing, and his attorneys' lack of cooperation further prejudiced the applicants. The court exercised its discretion to order sec…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Vexatious Litigation
• Uniform Rule 47
• Recission Application
• Attorney Client Costs

Motswako Office Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Voigt (Previously Van Niekerk) (030796/2022)

Motswako Office Solutions (Pty) Ltd v Voigt (Previously Van Niekerk) (030796/2022) [2025] ZAGPPHC 22 (13 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

030796/2022

Judge

T E Joyini

The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs against an incola plaintiff alleging sexual harassment, finding no proof of inability to pay or abusive litigation.

• Security For Costs
• Uniform Rule 47
• Vexatious Litigation
• Abuse Of Process
• Security-for-costs
• Uniform-rule-47

Mokhele v South African Legal Practice Council (2433/2023)

Mokhele v South African Legal Practice Council (2433/2023) [2025] ZAFSHC 1 (8 January 2025)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2433/2023

Judge

Naidoo

The High Court ordered an attorney struck from the roll to furnish R300,000 security for costs before his leave-to-appeal application could proceed.

• Security For Costs
• Leave To Appeal
• Striking Off Attorney
• Uniform Rule 47
• Security-for-costs
• Leave-to-appeal

Kreetiv Communications CC v Harrington NO and Others (0021549/2021)

Kreetiv Communications CC v Harrington NO and Others (0021549/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 795 (17 July 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

0021549/2021

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The High Court ordered an impecunious close corporation to provide R500,000 security for costs after finding its claim appeared vexatious and unlikely to succeed.

• Security For Costs
• Close Corporation Act
• Uniform Rule 47
• Vexatious Litigation
• Security-for-costs
• Close-corporations

Good Hope Plasterers CC t/a Good Hope Construction v Aecom SA (Pty) Ltd (15454/2016)

Good Hope Plasterers CC t/a Good Hope Construction v Aecom SA (Pty) Ltd (15454/2016) [2018] ZAWCHC 164 (6 December 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

15454/2016

Judge

J Cloete

The court found that the order of 13 January 2017, granted by agreement, established both the applicant's liability to furnish security for costs and the amount thereof. The correspondence between the parties demonstrated that the applicant consented to provide security, and the only dispute was the form it should take. The order did not record any reservation of rights or denial of liability by the applicant. The court held that, pursuant to uniform rule 47(6), the respondent was entitled to approach the registrar to increase the amount of security if the original amount was insufficient, an…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Uniform Rule 47
• Interpretation Of Court Orders
• Review Of Registrar Decisions

Cordier Handelaars Bk v Ludik (444/2014)

Cordier Handelaars Bk v Ludik (444/2014) [2015] ZANCHC 40 (18 September 2015)

Court

Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley

Case number

444/2014

Judge

Olivier R

The court refused security for costs, holding that the applicant’s allegations about the respondent’s finances and assets were too vague and unsupported.

• Security For Costs
• Uniform Rule 47
• Burden Of Proof
• Condonation
• Costs Order
• Security-for-costs

Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Appleseed Entertainment; InRe: Appleseed Entertainment v Mobile telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (23648/11)

Mobile Telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd v Appleseed Entertainment; InRe: Appleseed Entertainment v Mobile telephone Networks (Pty) Ltd (23648/11) [2015] ZAGPJHC 5 (29 January 2015)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

23648/11

Judge

D S S Moshidi

The High Court dismissed a plaintiff’s action after it failed for months to furnish security for costs ordered under Uniform Rule 47.

• Security For Costs
• Uniform Rule 47
• Dismissal Of Action
• Costs Orders
• Security-for-costs
• Uniform-rule-47

Grau v Van Zyl Inc (26612/11)

Grau v Van Zyl Inc (26612/11) [2013] ZAGPJHC 184 (3 June 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

26612/11

Judge

P L Carstensen

The court held that the defendant was entitled to security for costs as the plaintiff is a peregrinus and does not own immovable property in South Africa. The application was not premature since the defendant did not seek a stay of proceedings, and the plaintiff contested liability to provide security, thus entitling the defendant to approach the court under Uniform Rule 47(3). The court found no evidence that the application was brought solely to frustrate the plaintiff's action. The amount of security is to be determined by the Registrar or Taxing Master. However, the application could have…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus
• Uniform Rule 47
• Costs Award

Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another v Emergency Medical Supplies and Trainining CC (t/a EMS); In re: Emergency Medical Supplies and Trainining CC (t/a EMS) v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another (A15/2007)

Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another v Emergency Medical Supplies and Trainining CC (t/a EMS); In re: Emergency Medical Supplies and Trainining CC (t/a EMS) v Health Professions Council of South Africa and Another (A15/2007) [2013] ZAWCHC 39 (25 February 2013)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

A15/2007

Judge

R M Nyman

The High Court dismissed an application for security for costs pending an SCA appeal, finding the request was delayed and that the respondent had offered an undisputed personal undertaking.

• Security For Costs
• Uniform Rule 47
• Leave To Appeal
• Court Jurisdiction
• Security-for-costs
• Uniform-rule-47

Feigner v Body Corporate of the Lighthouse Mall (438/2010)

Feigner v Body Corporate of the Lighthouse Mall (438/2010) [2011] ZAKZDHC 20 (16 March 2011)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

438/2010

Judge

Ntshangase

The court found that the respondent, a peregrinus with no assets in South Africa, could be required to provide security for costs to protect the applicant, an incola, from the risk of an unrecoverable costs award. The respondent's asset disclosure was insufficient to demonstrate that he would be able to satisfy an adverse costs order, and there was no clear evidence that requiring security would stifle his claim. The court exercised its discretion, balancing the respondent's right of access to court under section 34 of the Constitution against the applicant's right to recover costs, and concl…

Source excerpt

• Security For Costs
• Peregrinus
• Uniform Rule 47
• Constitutional Right Of Access
• Costs Award