1
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this
document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG)
CASE NO: 2024/074554
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE: 30.04.2026
SIGNATURE OF JUDGE: JR MEADEN
In re: the exceptions in the main action between
YUNUS MOOLLA First Excipient/First
Defendant
(Identity Number: 6[…])
IMRAAN MOOLLA Second Excipient/Second
Defendant
(Identity Number: 9[…]
YUNUS MOOLLA N.O. Third Excipient/Third Defendant
(Identity Number: 6[…])
2
IMRAAN MOOLLA N.O. Fourth Excipient/Fourth
Defendant
(Identity Number: 9[…] )
FOR THE TIME BEING THE TRUSTEES OF Fifth Excipient/Fifth
Defendant
SAFY TRUST
SPRINGS CAR WHOLESALERS (PTY) LTD Sixth Excipient/Sixth
Defendant
(Registration Number: 2008/014857/07)
HIRED BY BLACK WOMEN (PTY) LTD Seventh Excipient/Seventh
Defendant
(Registration Number: 2021/125051/07)
and
DOLLAR RENT A CAR INCORPORATED First Respondent/First
Plaintiff
THRIFTY RENT-A-CAR SYSTEM LLC Second Respondent/Second
Plaintiff
HERTZ INTERNATIONAL LTD Third Respondent/Third Plaintiff
JUDGMENT – SECURITY FOR COSTS
3
MEADEN AJ
[1] In the course and scope of the above ongoing action, I have been
presented with two opposed exception arguments, launched at the instance
of the Defendants and by way of two notices drawn in terms of Rule 23 of
the Uniform Rules of Court as well as a separate opposed application for
security for costs launched in terms of Rule 47 of the Uniform Rules of
Court.
[2] I have dealt with the above exceptions in a separate comprehensive
judgment and Order. This judgment and related Order contend with the
above Rule 47 application for security for costs.
[3] I refer to the parties as cited in the ongoing action proceedings launched
under the above case number (“main action”).
[4] The First and Second Plaintiffs - being Dollar Rent A Car Incorporated
(“Dollar”) and Thrifty Rent -A-Car System LLC (“Thrifty”) are American
corporations duly incorporated as such in accordance with the company
laws of the State of Oklahoma, United States of America, having registered
addresses at 5[…] E[…] 3[…] Street, T[… ], T[…] County, Oklahoma, 7[…] ,
United States of America.
[5] The Third Plaintiff - Hertz International Limited ("Hertz International”) is an
American company duly incorporated as such in accordance with the
Company laws of the State of Delaware, United States of America; having
its registered address at 1[ …] O[…] Street, C[…] T[… ] C[… ], Wilmington,
Delaware 1[…] , United States of America.
4
[6] The First, Second and Third Plaintiffs operate within the Hertz Corporation
and conduct car rental business es through, inter alia; the brands of Hertz,
Dollar Rent -A-Car and Thrifty Car Rental. The First, Second and Third
Plaintiffs are vis-à-vis South Africa, foreign companies.
[7] The First and Second Defendants are Yunus and Imraan Moolla, adult
male employees of the Sixth Defendant. The Third and Fourth Defendants
are Yunus and Imraan Moolla N.O in their nominated official capacities as
trustees of the Safy Trust – the Fifth Defendant. The Sixth Defendant is a
sub-licensee of the Safy Trust. The Seventh Defendant is Hired for Black
Women (Pty) Ltd (“HBW”) cited by the Plaintiffs as a co -Defendant in
circumstances where it is alleged that HBW utilise d the Plaintiffs’
trademarks referenced in the main action and when not entitled so to do. All
of the above Defendants are located/resident in South Africa and are
incolae of South Africa.
[8] It is noteworthy from the Plaintiffs’ amended Particulars of Claim that no
particulars are recorded relating to the actual business addresses and
operations of the Plaintiffs in the Republic of South Africa. Instead and on a
convenience basis, the Plaintiffs only cite as their chosen address in South
Africa and which falls within the jurisdiction of this Court ; that of their
attorneys of record – Bowman Gilfillan, Johannesburg.
[9] What is apparent from the Plaintiffs’ Answering Affidavit on this security for
costs application is that the Plaintiffs are not conducting business in their
own rights and names in South Africa. Instead, the Plaintiffs have entered
into confidential International Master License Agreements style agreements
(“IMLA”) with independent undisclosed entities in South Africa and which
then are in turn authorised and empowered to use the Plaintiffs’ trademarks
and from which the Plaintiffs then derive royalties.
5
[10] It was held in JM v NLJC1 that a foreign perigrinus is someone who is
domiciled or resident outside of the Republic of South Africa and this is
exactly what the Plaintiffs are.
[11] Having due regard to the court papers before me , there is nothing
contained therein that convinces me to the contrary that the Plaintiffs are
anything other than foreigners – perigrini.
[12] Further, aside from referencing the Plaintiffs’ various trademarks registered
in South Africa ( and which are incorporeal movable assets), the Plaintiffs
do not allude to owning any other categories of assets registered in their
respective names (including immovable assets) in the Republic of South
Africa.
[13] In the absence of the Plaintiffs owning unencumbered immovable property
in South Africa, the First – Seventh Defendants have demanded that the
Plaintiffs, being perigrini; furnish security for costs in the ongoing action in
favour of the Defendants and in the amount of R 1,8 million. The Plaintiffs
have opposed so doing.
[14] Consistent with Rule 47(1), the Defendants have resorted to this application
for security for costs at the inception of their defence of this action and
following on their entering an appearance to defend and with that; then also
raised various exceptions to the Plaintiffs’ amended Particulars of Claim.
[15] As rule of practice, the merits of this litigation are not considered at this
stage of the proceedings, except in cases where it is alleged that the
defence is vexatious and which has not been substantively made out here.2
1 (2023/00100) [2024] ZAGPJHC 762 (16 August 2024) at para 8.
6
[16] Further and again as a general rule of practice, a per egrinus who is a
Plaintiff or Applicant and who does not own unmortgaged immovable
property in South Africa, may be ordered to give security for the costs of
his/her action.3
[17] Per Magida v Minister of Police 4, a court has a discretion whether or not to
order security to be lodged. This court discretion is to be exercised by
having regard to all the relevant facts as well as considerations of equity
and fairness to both parties. In the exercise of the court's discretion all the
relevant factors have to weighed, having regard to the particular
circumstances of the case as well as on consideration of equity and
fairness to both the incola and the perigrinus.5
[18] The Plaintiffs in their answer on this security for costs application do not
provide the Defendants with comfort that any costs o rders made against
the Plaintiffs would be summarily covered and paid in favour of the
Defendants and which would be the logical way in which to ass uage the
Defendants’ concerns and while being embroiled in the ongoing substantial,
complex and costly legal action as framed by the Plaintiffs.
[19] The likelihood of the Defendants having to proceed against the Plaintiffs in
recovering the costs in the United States of America are not dispelled here
by the Plaintiffs.
[20] The Supreme Court of Appeal in Exploitatie – en Beleggingsmaatschappij
Arginauten 11 BV v Honig
6 held that the associated uncertainty and
inconvenience that this would entail is one of the fundamental reasons why
a peregrinus should provide security for costs . Further, there is no
perceivable prejudice to the Plaintiffs in putting up the requested security
2 Dinos and Another v Agro V.I.M SA and Another (08284/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 72 (29 January
2015) at para 3.
3 Silvercraft Helicopters (Switzerland) Ltd v Zonnekus Mansions (Pty) Ltd 2009 (5) SA 135 (W)
at 143 G – H.
4 At para 14E and 15D.
at 143 G – H.
4 At para 14E and 15D.
5 Dinos and Another v Agro V.I.M SA and Another (08284/14) [2015] ZAGPJHC 72 (29 January
2015) at para 5.
6 2012 (1) SA 247 (SCA).
7
for costs and for that matter, increasing such security for costs should the
need be motivated by the Defendants in due course.
[21] The Plaintiffs further do not allege that they will be un able to pursue their
action against the Defendants or that they w ill be affected in any way if
ordered to put up security for costs. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs contend
that they are well able to provide such security, however; contest being
liable so to do.
[22] I am accordingly satisfied that there are no facts justifying deviating from
the general rule that a perigrinus should provide security for an incola ’s
costs. I have not been persuaded in the exercise of my discretion in favour
of the Plaintiffs and in absolving them from furnishing security for costs.
ORDER
[23] I accordingly make the following Order:
1. The First – Third Respondent/Plaintiffs are ordered to furnish security for costs in
favour of the First – Seventh Applicant/Defendants in re the action and associated
process launched under the above case number and in the amount o f
R 1,800,000.00 (One million, eight hundred thousand rands) and within 15 (fifteen)
days of the date of this Court Order.
2. The First – Third Respondent/Plaintiffs are to deposit the above R 1,800,000.00 in
trust with their attorneys of record – Bowman Gilfillan and simultaneously provide
Bowman Gilfillan with written instructions in terms of section 86(5) of the Legal
Practice Act 28 of 2014 regarding depositing the above security amount in a
section 86(4) interest-bearing account linked to the trust account of Bowman
Gilfillan. Interest accruing on the above security amount will be for the benefit of
the recipient of such security monies held in trust.
3. Ongoing action proceedings under the above case number between the above
parties are stayed pending the Respondent/Plaintiffs’ full compliance with that
recorded in 1 and 2 above.
recorded in 1 and 2 above.
4. Where monies are paid out in favour of the Applicant/Defendants from the above
security for costs deposit, then the Respondent/Plaintiffs are required to top up the
8
security and maintain this at R 1,800,000.00 and while this action remains ongoing.
Should the Respondent/Plaintiffs fail so to do, then the Applicant/Defendants may
approach this Court on same papers, duly amplified for relief here.
5. Bowman Gilfillan will retain the above security monies in trust for the duration of
this matter incorporating action proceedings under the above case number and
regardless whether its professional mandate is terminated at any time by the
Respondent/Plaintiffs.
6. Bowman Gilfillan will on a monthly basis provide the Plaintiffs and Defendants with
a written account reconciliation of the above security monies being held in trust.
7. The above security monies may be paid out of trust either by written agreement
between the Plaintiffs and Defendants or in terms of an order of this Court directing
payment.
8. The costs of this security for costs application are granted against the
Respondent/Plaintiffs on the attorney and client scale, including that of two legal
counsel on scale C and as referred to in Rule 69 of the Uniform Rules of Court.
______________
MEADEN JR
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
9
For Applicant/Defendants: Adv. A Rafik Bhana SC
Adv. Suhail Mohamed
Instructed by: Knowles Husain Lindsay Inc
For Respondent/Plaintiffs: Adv. Anthony Stein SC
Adv. Anthonie Jansen Van Vuuren
Instructed by: Bowman Gilfillan Inc.
Date of Hearing: 6 February 2026
Date of Judgment: 30 April 2026
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties and or
parties' representatives by email and by being uploaded to CourtOnline/ CaseLines.
The date and time for the hand down is deemed to be 11 h00 on this 30
th day of April
2026.