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...
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.