About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 120
|
|
Rama Communal Property Association and Others v Nthite and Others (2024-109823; 2025-026086;) [2026] ZAGPPHC 120 (3 February 2026)
REPUBLIC
OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case
Number: 2024-109823
(1)
REPORTABLE: NO
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED: YES
DATE: 3 February 2026
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE:
In
the matter between:
RAMA
COMMUNAL
PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
1
st
Applicant
EPHRAIM
POO N.O.
2
nd
Applicant
LIZZV
ZWANE N.O.
3
rd
Applicant
HANS
LETANYE MODISELLE N.O.
4th
Applicant
MATSHIBISO
SELINA DIALE N.O.
5
th
Applicant
ANDREW
SELLO PHETO N.O.
6
th
Applicant
ELLIOT
BUTSI
7
th
Applicant
ROSE-SOSI
DIBETSO
8
th
Applicant
And
HENDRIK
MPHO NTHITE
1
st
Respondent
SINAH
MOSHIBUDI MOTHAPO
2
nd
Respondent
CECILIA
LINDIWE MOIANE
3
rd
Respondent
MOIPOE
ELIZABETH SESOKO
4
th
Respondent
SYDNEY
MPPHIKO
5
th
Respondent
LETHLOGONOLO
MOENG
7
th
Respondent
ECKRAAL
QUARRIES (PTY) LTD
7
th
Respondent
MINISTER
OF AGRICULTURE,
LAND REFORM
AND
8
th
Respondent
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
CITY
OF TSHWANE METROPOLITAN MUNICIPALITY
9
th
Respondent
NATIONAL
DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS
10
th
Respondent
RAMA
HD INVESTMENTS 1
11
th
Respondent
RAMA
HD INVESTMENTS
2
12
th
Respondent
Case
Number: 2025-026086
In
the matter between:
EPRAIM
POO
1
st
Applicant
LIZZY
ZWANE
2
nd
Applicant
HANS
LETANYE MODISELLE
3
rd
Applicant
MATSHIDISO
SELINA DIALE
4
th
Applicant
ANDREW
SELLO PHETO
5
th
Applicant
ELLIOT
BUTSI
6
th
Applicant
ROSE-SOSI
DIBETSO
7
th
Applicant
And
RAMA
COMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
1
st
Respondent
REG
NO: CPA/02/0435/A
HENDRICK
MPHO NTHITE N.O.
2
nd
Respondent
SINAH
MOSHIBODI MOTHAPO N.O.
3
rd
Respondent
CECILIA
LINDIWE MOIANE N.O.
4
th
Respondent
MOIPONE
ELIZABETH SESOKO N.O.
5
th
Respondent
In
re:
RAMA
COMMUNAL PROPERTY ASSOCIATION
1
st
Applicant
REG
NO: CPA/02/0435/A
HENDRICK
MPHO NTHITE N.O.
2
nd
Applicant
SINAH
MOSHIBODI MOTHAPO N.O.
3
rd
Applicant
CECILIA
LINDIWE MOIANE N.O.
4
th
Applicant
MOIPOONE
ELIZABETH SESOKO N.O.
5
th
Applicant
SIDNEY
MPHIKO N.O.
6
th
Applicant
LETLHONGONOLO
MOENG N.O.
7
th
Applicant
And
MINISTER
OF AGRICULTURE, LAND REFORM AND
1
st
Respondent
RURAL
DEVELOPMENT
EPRAIM
POO
2
nd
Respondent
LIZZY
ZWANE
3
rd
Respondent
HANS
LETANYE
MODISELLE
4
th
Respondent
MATSHIDISO
SELINA DIALE
5
th
Respondent
ANDREW
SELLO PHETO
6
th
Respondent
ELLIOT
BUTSI
7
th
Respondent
ROSE-SOSI
DIBETSO
8
th
Respondent
JUDGEMENT
Delivered:
This Judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the
Plaintiff's legal representatives and the Defendants by email
and by
being uploaded to the electronic file on CaseLines. The date and time
for the hand down is deemed to be on 3 February 2026
Klopper,
AJ
INTRODUCTION:
[1]
These were two
applications before the court, which were heard jointly. These
matters concern the procedural issue of security for
cost. The
question that came before this court in both matters was an
application for security in terms of rule 47(3) of the Uniform
Rules
of Court.
[2]
It appears
from the initial and later filed papers that some of the citations of
the parties have changed, but nothing turns on
this.
[3]
In both
applications, the Applicants seek security against the Respondents in
the amount of R800 000,00.
[4]
When the
matters were argued before the court, the parties were duly
represented by counsel.
THE
FACTS:
[5]
The Applicants
in both applications under case number 2024-109823 and 2025-026086
launched an application against the Respondents
for security of cost
in terms of rule 47(3) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
[6]
In case number
2024-109823, the Applicants seek the following order:
6.1.
That the First
to Sixth Respondents be ordered to furnish security to First to Eight
Applicants in the sum of R800 000,00, alternatively,
an amount to be
determined by the Registrar of Court;
6.2.
That the
proceedings be stayed until such order is complied with;
6.3.
Should the
First to Sixth Respondents failed to furnish security within fifteen
days from the order or determination by the Registrar,
the First to
Eight Applicants be granted leave to apply on the same page, duly
amplified for appropriate relief as may be necessary.
[7]
In case number
2025-026086 the Applicants seek the following order:
7.1.
That the First
to Seventh Respondents be ordered to furnish security to First to
Seventh Applicants in the sum of R800 000,00 (eight
hundred thousand
rand) alternatively, to this sum such
amount
as
shall
be determined
by the Registrar or the Court;
7.2.
That the
proceedings (final interdict) be stayed until such order is complied
with;
7.3.
Should the
First to Seventh Respondents fail to furnish to First to Seventh
Applicants with security within 15 days from the order
or the
determination by the Registrar, the First to Seventh Applicants be
granted leave to apply on the same papers, duly amplified
as may be
necessary, for the dismissal of the proceedings (final interdict);
7.4.
The Second to
the Seventh Respondents be ordered to pay the cost occasioned by this
application on an attorney and client scale,
including cost
occasioned by the employment of counsel.
[8]
The Applicants in the
present two applications for security for cost are also the
Applicants in the main application under the respective
case numbers.
[9]
None of the
Respondents in
the
applications under the above two case numbers filed any
counterclaim/counterapplication in the respective applications.
RULE
47 OF THE UNIFORM RULES OF COURT:
[10]
The right of a party to request security for cost is found in rule 47
of the Uniform Rules of Court, which empowers a Defendant/Respondent
to demand that the Applicant/Plaintiff furnish security before
proceeding further with their claim. Rule 47 sets out a procedural
framework, establishing when and how security for cost may be sought.
This procedural framework is supported and enshrined by principles
stemming from common law, and statutory provisions such as the
Companies Act.
[11]
Security for cost has its roots not only in procedural rules, but in
common law principles. Security for cost orders also engage
the
constitutional right to access for courts, enshrined in section 34 of
the South African Constitution. The constitutional balancing
ensures
that security for costs is granted only where justified by the facts,
preserving fairness without undermining access to
justice.
[12]
An order for security is not automatic. The court has a discretion to
grant or refuse it, considering the circumstances of
the case.
[13]
Rule 47
enables a party, typically a defendant or respondent, to request that
the opposing party furnish financial security to cover
potential
adverse costs, particularly where there is concern about the opposing
party's ability to satisfy a cost order. However,
only in
circumstances where the Respondent in the main application files a
counterclaim/counterapplication, will rule 47 entitle
the applicant
in the main application to seek security for costs in terms of rule
47 of the Rules. In such cases, the Respondent
effectively becomes
the "applicant" in respect of the counterapplication/claim,
and the original applicant becomes the
"respondent"
thereto, entitling the original applicant to demand security under
rule 47 if the applicable grounds are
met.
[14]
Rule 47 does
not explicitly limit who may demand security from whom but provides a
general procedure for a party entitled to demand
security to do so
from another party. The entitlement arises from common law
principles. The common law generally allows for security
for cost to
protect a party dragged into litigation from the risk that the
initiating party cannot pay an adverse cost order.
Thus,
security is
typically
demanded by Respondents from Applicants in
the main
proceedings.
[15]
In
Louw
v
Superdoc
One
CC
[1]
Grabler
AJ stated the following in this regard:
"[11]
R47
deals with issues of procedure
only.
It
is not regarded as substantive law as to the entitlement to ask for
nor the obligation to provide said security for costs. (Fusion
Properties 233
CC
v
Stellenbosch Municipality)
[2]
The
common law dictates that an incola of the Republic cannot as a
general rule be called upon to give security for costs [Van Zyl
v
Euobla Trust (Edms) Bpk
[3]
]
and
that is where the Plaintiff is an incola. Mr Maree was unable to
refer me to any law, nor could I find any, which states that
an
incola defendant (which in the context of the counterclaim Superdoc
is) can be asked to put up security for it to be allowed
to continue
with its defence to any claim.
[16]
It
doesn't strike me as odd as to the reason why there appears to be no
such authority. All persons, big or small, natural or artificial
brought to
a
court have
the right to defend themselves. It will be
a
sad day
indeed if only those able to put up security for
a
possible
adverse cost order are allowed to exercise constitutional rights of
equality before the law and access to courts Those
rights are of
course ensconced in s9(1) of our Constitution."
[17]
Accordingly, I
find that the Applicants in the main application under the above two
case numbers cannot demand security of the Respondents
in the main
applications. The two applications for security in terms of rule 47
are thus without merit and unfounded in law and
therefore must fail.
[18]
In the
circumstances, the following order:
1
The
application brought under case number 2024-109823 is dismissed.
2
The
application brough under case number 2025-026086 is dismissed.
3
The
Applicants
in both
applications
are
ordered
to
bear
the
costs
of the
Respondents
in
relation to these two applications, to be taxed on scale C.
JA KLOPPER
ACTING
JUDGE
HIGH
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
Appearances
Counsel
for the Applicants: Adv BR Matlhape
Instructed
by:
Mokgotjana
Attorneys
Appearance
for Respondents: Adv RG
Cohen
Defendants'
attorneys:
Govender
Attorneys (Jothi) Inc
Date
of Hearing:
4 November
2025
Date
of Judgment:
3 February 2026
[1]
[2025]
ZAFSHC 89
[2]
(unreported
SCA case number 932/2019) dated 29 January 2021 at par 20
[3]
1983
(3) SA 394
(T) at 396 B
-
397
B