Furnishing security for costs by an incola company - at last some legal certainty or more confusion? Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SCA)

Loading...
Thumbnail Image

Date

Authors

Bekker, P.M. (Petrus Thino)

Journal Title

Journal ISSN

Volume Title

Publisher

Juta Law

Abstract

In the South African law of civil procedure, the practice of requesting a plaintiff to furnish security for costs was limited initially to a foreign peregrinus (non-resident) plaintiff who did not own any immovable property in South Africa. Over the years, the scope of this rule has been extended, and some of the provisions regarding a request for security for costs were enacted in legislation. One such provision was s 13 of the former Companies Act 61 of 1973, which stated that where an incola (local) company or body corporate sued as a plaintiff or applicant, a court could, in its discretion, order such a company or body corporate to furnish security for the defendant’s costs in certain circumstances. This section was not re-enacted in the Companies Act 71 of 2008. This omission resulted in several conflicting court decisions regarding the furnishing of security for costs by an incola plaintiff company.

Description

Keywords

Civil procedure, Plaintiff, Security for costs, Legislation, Incola (local) company, Body corporate

Sustainable Development Goals

Citation

Bekker, T. 2017, 'Furnishing security for costs by an incola company - at last some legal certainty or more confusion? Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd v South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SCA)', South African Law Journal, vol. 134, no. 3, pp. 481-497.