THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

JUDGMENT

Reportable
Case no: 20156/2014

In the matter between:

BOOST SPORTS AFRICA (PTY) LIMITED
APPELLANT

and

THE SOUTH AFRICA BREWERIES (PTY) LIMITED
RESPONDENT

Neutral citation:
Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd v The South Africa Breweries (Pty) Ltd
(20156/2014) [2015] ZASCA 93 (1 June 2015)

Bench:
Ponnan, Mhlantla, Mbha JJA and Fourie and Gorven AJJA

Heard:

13 May 2015

Delivered:

1 June 2015

Summary: Whether absent a provision similar to the repealed s 13 of the Companies
Act 61 of 1973 an incola company can be compelled to furnish security for costs.

_____________________________________________________________________

ORDER
______________________________________________________________________

On appeal from: Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria (Hassim AJ sitting as
court of first instance): reported sub nom Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd v South African
Breweries Ltd 2014 (4) SA 343 (GP).

The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those consequent upon the employment
of two counsel.
______________________________________________________________________

JUDGMENT
______________________________________________________________________

Ponnan and Mbha JJA (Mhlantla JA, Fourie and Gorven AJJA concurring):

[1] On 21 October 2011 the appellant, Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Limited (the
plaintiff), instituted action in the High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Pretoria
against the respondent, the South Africa Breweries (Pty) Limited (the defendant). The
plaintiff‘s cause of action is based on an alleged breach of contract by the defendant. It
alleges that it disclosed a particular advertising concept referred to as the ‗fans
challenge concept‘ to the defendant under an agreed confidentiality regime between
them and that the defendant later used the concept to conduct an event called ‗be the
coach‘ in breach of that agreement. In its plea, the defendant raised a number of
defences, in particular the defendant denied that there was any confidentiality
agreement between the parties in relation to the concept and averred that the
information pertaining to the concept was already in the public domain when it was first
disclosed to the defendant.

[2] After the plaintiff had made available to the defendant its discovered documents,
the latter became concerned that the former would not be able to meet an adverse
costs order should it fail in the contemplated action. When the plaintiff refused to furnish
evidence of its ability to pay the defendant‘s costs in the event of its claim being
dismissed, the defendant launched an application against the plaintiff on 1 August 2013
for security for its costs. The founding affidavit filed in support of that application stated:
‗16.
The defendant, therefore, became concerned that, if the plaintiff‘s claim was dismissed
and an adverse costs order was granted against it, it would not be in a position to meet such an
order. For that reason, I was instructed to conduct investigations to determine whether or not
the plaintiff would be able to meet an adverse costs order against it. The investigations were
conducted by conducting various internet searches and also searches of public records. The
investigations revealed that:
16.1
the plaintiff‘s registered address recorded to be at 2 Scherwitz Road, Berea, East
London, South Africa is the address of its auditors, Marais & Smith Accountants. . . .
16.2
the plaintiff‘s principal place of business at 123 Western Avenue, Vincent, East London,
(as pleaded at paragraph 1 of its particulars of claim) is the address of Smale & Partners, a firm
of architects of which Jed Webber is a director. . . . Mr Webber is a director of the plaintiff as
well as a former director of Boost Sports International Limited, the plaintiff‘s apparent
predecessor-in-title in respect of the concept;
16.3
the document titled ―Deed of Cession‖, attached to the plaintiff‘s particulars of claim as
Annex ―A‖, records the plaintiff‘s registered address and principal place of business at 99
Clovelly Road, Greenside, Johannesburg. This is a residential address. . . .
16.4
the plaintiff does not have any immovable property registered in its name in any of the
Deed‘s Registries in South Africa. . . .
16.5
the plaintiff does not have a telephone number listed in the online company telephone
registry known as Brabys. . . .
16.6
the plaintiff does not have a telephone number listed in the yellow pages. A search was
conducted under the categories ―marketing consultants‖ and ―market research‖ for both
Gauteng and the Eastern Cape. . . .
16.7
the plaintiff does not have a telephone number listed in Telkom‘s directory enquiry
services. This information was gleaned from my telephone conversation with a Telkom directory
enquiry operator on 18 June 2013. During that telephone conversation, I asked the operator to

search for the telephone number of Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Limited. The operator was not able
to locate a telephone number for the plaintiff in South Africa;
16.8
the plaintiff does not operate a website advertising its business. . . . ; and
16.9
the plaintiff‘s parent company, Boost Sports International Limited, has been dissolved,
according to the United Kingdom‘s company register. . . .
17.
It therefore appears clear that the plaintiff is not trading currently and has not done so in
the past. It has no assets registered in its name. Furthermore, in an effort to avoid this
application, the defendant wrote to the plaintiff asking it to disclose its financial statements to the
defendant and to show that it has sufficient income or assets to cover any adverse costs order
against it. . . . The plaintiff refused to provide evidence of its ability to pay any such order in a
letter dated 11 July 2013 . . . The defendant, therefore, served a formal notice in terms of Rule
47(1) on the plaintiff. . . .
18.
The only inference one can draw from the evidence above and the plaintiff‘s refusal to
provide evidence of its ability to pay any adverse costs order against it is that the plaintiff does
not have any means with which to do so. If the plaintiff is to contend otherwise, it is required to
adduce evidence of its ability to pay any adverse costs order against it. Should the plaintiff now
adduce evidence of its ability to pay any adverse costs order against it, having been given an
opportunity to do so earlier, an adverse costs order will be sought against it in this application.‘

[3] The response to those allegations on behalf of the plaintiff was:
‗16.1
Save to repeat paragraph 14 above, I admit these allegations.
16.2
The plaintiff has four shareholders whose shareholding is as follows:
16.2.1 Jed Webber (Myself) – 45%;
16.2.2 Mkhuseli Mnguni – 25%;
16.2.3 Justin Price – 20%;
16.2.4 Andrew Stylianou – 10%.
16.3
I am an architect, Mr Mnguni is an entrepreneur, Mr Price is an estate agent and Mr
Stylianou is a legal adviser.
16.4
The plaintiff‘s shareholders are funding the plaintiff‘s costs. However, none of its
shareholders have sufficient assets to fund the plaintiff‘s costs and to put up the quantum of
security for costs demanded by the defendant.
16.5
This demand by the defendant will, effectively, destroy the plaintiff‘s ability to prosecute
its claim.

17.1
I admit that the plaintiff has never traded. I deny that it has no assets. The concept
constitutes a valuable asset. This much is clear from the manner in which the concept has been
exploited by the defendant.
17.2
It is extremely difficult to place a firm value on an intangible asset such as the concept.
However, if this Court is prima facie of the view that the concept constitutes confidential
information worthy of protection, then the concept must have significant commercial value given
that the defendant has exploited it so successfully.
17.3
Save as aforesaid I admit these allegations.
18.1
I repeat paragraph 17 above.
18.2
Save as aforesaid I deny these allegations.‘

[4] The defendant‘s application succeeded before Hassim AJ1 who, on 17 March
2014, issued the following order:
‗(i)
The plaintiff is ordered to furnish security for the defendant‘s legal costs in the action.
(ii)
The form, amount and manner of security to be provided by the plaintiff shall be
determined by the Registrar on application by the defendant to that office.
(iii)
In the event that the plaintiff fails to provide security as determined by the Registrar
within 20 days of the Registrar‘s order or determination, the action shall be stayed forthwith and
the defendant is granted leave to apply on the same papers, amplified as necessary, for the
dismissal of the action.
(iv)
The plaintiff is to pay the costs of the application, including the costs occasioned by the
employment of two counsel.‘
The appeal is with the leave of the learned Judge.

[5] The procedure whereby an application for security for costs is made is governed
by Uniform rule 47. It provides:
‗(1)
A party entitled and desiring to demand security for costs from another shall, as soon as
practicable after the commencement of proceedings, deliver a notice setting forth the grounds
upon which such security is claimed, and the amount demanded.
. . .

1 The judgment of Hassim AJ is reported sub nom Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd v South African Breweries
Ltd 2014 (4) SA 343 (GP).

(4)
The court may, if security be not given within a reasonable time, dismiss any
proceedings instituted or strike out any pleadings filed by the party in default, or make such
other order as to it may seem meet.‘
The rule, which deals with the procedure to be followed, applies to all cases where
security is sought in the high court. It deals with procedure and not with substantive
law.2 For the substantive right, it is to the common law and the relevant statutory
provisions that one must look.3 The general rule of our law as laid down in Witham v
Venables (1828) 1 Menz 291 is that an incola plaintiff cannot be compelled to furnish
security for costs. As explained in Lumsden v Kaffrarian Bank (1884 – 1885) 3 S.C. 366
no inhabitant of the Colony can be compelled to give security for costs whether he be
rich or poor, solvent or insolvent, but a peregrinus may be called upon to do so, unless
he can prove that he is possessed of immovable property within the Colony of adequate
value (Lombard v Lombardy Hotel Co Ltd (In Liquidation) 1911 TPD 866).

[6] In the case of a company, until recently, there existed a statutory exception to the
general rule that an incola plaintiff cannot be compelled to furnish security.4 Our
company law derives from English law. Prior to Union each of the Provinces had its own
Act. The first general Act providing for incorporation of companies in South Africa was
the Cape Joint Stock Companies Limited Liability Act 23 of 1861, which was based on
English legislation. This Act served as the model for the Acts subsequently enacted in
Natal, the South African Republic and the Republic of the Orange Free State. Only in
1892 was a fully-fledged Companies Act (Act 25 of 1892) passed in the Cape. Section
128 of that Act provided:
‗Where a limited company is plaintiff in any action, suit, or other legal proceeding, any Judge
having jurisdiction in the matter may, if it appears by any credible testimony that there is reason
to believe that if the defendant be successful in his defence the assets of the company will be
insufficient to pay his costs, require sufficient security to be given for such costs, and may stay
all proceedings until security is given.‘
(See Brink v Liquidator United Farming Corporation of South Africa Ltd 1913 CPD 371).

2 D F Scott (EP) (Pty) Ltd v Golden Valley Supermarket 2002 (6) SA 297 (SCA) para 9.
3 ICC Car Importers (Pty) Ltd v A Hartrodt SA (Pty) Ltd 2004 (4) SA 607 (W) at 615 G.
4 Zietsman v Electronic Media Network Ltd & others 2008 (4) SA 1 (SCA) para 4.

[7] In the absence of such a provision in the Transvaal Act of 1909, the issue as to
whether or not that power existed at common law arose in two cases in that Province. In
the first, Liquidator, Salisbury Meat Market Ltd v Perelson 1924 WLD 104 at 106-7 De
Waal J stated:
‗Apart from the English authorities to which I have referred, I can find no principle of our law
upon which the application for security for costs can be supported. The general rule of our law is
that nobody but a peregrinus can be called upon under any circumstances to give security for
costs, and that the Court has no jurisdiction to make an ordinary litigant, or one who sues under
a power conferred upon him expressly by Act of Parliament, give security for costs.‘
And, in the second, Lombard v Lombardy Hotel Co Ltd (In Liquidation) 1911 TPD 866,
Bristowe J stated:
‗In England cases of this kind are provided for by section 278 of the Companies Consolidation
Act, 1908, which (following section 69 of the Companies Act, 1862), empowers the Court to
order security for costs in every case where a limited company is plaintiff and will be unable to
pay the costs of the defendant if the action fails. And it has been held that the fact that a
company is in liquidation is in itself sufficient ground for ordering security to be given (Pure Spirit
Company v Fowler, 25 Q.B.D. 235). In our own Statute (the Companies Act, 1909), although it
is taken almost verbatim from the English Act, this section is omitted. Why this should have
been done it is hard to say, for the power to order security for costs is a most reasonable one,
having regard to the enormous protection which shareholders of a company derive from the
principle of limited liability. But the omission is not a reason for straining the Common Law. On
the contrary, it rather indicates an intention on the part of the Legislature that litigants with joint
stock companies in this country shall not enjoy the protection which is afforded to them in
England.‘
On appeal from the judgment of Bristowe J to the full court, neither Wessels J, nor
Smith J, entered into the issue, both having concluded that the matter was not
appealable. De Villiers JP considered that the court could order security against an
incola company. He expressed himself thus (at 876):
‗Now it was admitted that under similar circumstances in England a company could be
compelled to give security for costs under sec. 278 of the Companies Cons. Act, 1908. In fact,
as Bristowe J, points out, it has been held in the Pure Spirit Co. v Fowler (25 Q.B.D. 235), that
the fact that a company is in liquidation is, in itself, sufficient ground for ordering security to be
given. But it was contended that this Court has no such power as the corresponding section was

left out in our Company‘s Act, 1909, which, it was urged, follows the English Act so closely. This
conclusion is, to my mind, unwarranted. The mere fact of the absence of a corresponding
section in our law does not justify such a conclusion. It may be that the Legislature considered
that the matter was covered by the principles of our Common Law, or it may even be a pure
oversight.‘

[8] After Union and before the issue could be settled by our courts, the first South
African Companies Act was enacted in 1926.5 It provided in s 216:
‗Where a limited company is plaintiff . . . in any legal proceedings, the Court having jurisdiction
in the matter may at any stage, if it appears by credible testimony that there is reason to believe
that the company . . . will be unable to pay the costs of the defendant . . . if successful in his
defence require sufficient security to be given for those costs and may stay all proceedings till
the security is given.‘
A similar provision was to be found in s 13 of the Companies Act 61 of 1973, which
read:
‗Where a company or other body corporate is plaintiff in any legal proceedings, the Court may at
any stage, if it appears by credible testimony that there is reason to believe that the company or
body corporate or if it is being wound up, the liquidator thereof, will be unable to pay the costs of
the defendant or respondent if successful in his defence, require sufficient security to be given
for those costs and may stay all proceedings till the security is given.‘

[9] Section 216 (and its successor, s 13, which mirrors provisions in certain other
Commonwealth jurisdictions),6 meant that the issue under the common law whether an
impecunious incola company can be required to give security for the costs of
proceedings instituted by it, was left unresolved. The object of s 13 was to protect

5 M S Blackman ‗Company Law‘ in Lawsa Vol 4(1) (first re-issue) para 5.
6 See eg s 726(1) of the United Kingdom Companies Act, which provides:
‗(1)   Where in England and Wales a limited company is plaintiff in an action or other legal proceedings,
the court having jurisdiction in the matter may, if it appears by credible testimony that there is reason to
believe that the company will be unable to pay the defendant's costs if successful in his defence, require
sufficient security to be given for those costs, and may stay all proceedings until the security is given.‘
And s 1335 of the Australian Corporations Act 2001, which provides:
‗(1)   Where a corporation is plaintiff in any action or other legal proceeding, the court having jurisdiction in
the matter may, if it appears by credible testimony that there is reason to believe that the corporation will
be unable to pay the costs of the defendant if successful in his, her or its defence, require sufficient
security to be given for those costs and stay all proceedings until the security is given.
(2)   The costs of any proceeding before a court under this Act are to be borne by such party to the
proceedings as the court, in its discretion, directs.‘

persons against liability for costs in regard to any action instituted by bankrupt
companies.7  Its main purpose was to ensure that companies, who were unlikely to be
able to pay costs and therefore not effectively at risk of an adverse costs order if
unsuccessful, did not institute litigation in circumstances where they had no prospects of
success thus causing their opponents unnecessary and irrecoverable expenses. As is
apparent from s 13, if a company ordered to provide security for costs was unable to do
so, it could have been prevented from proceeding with its action. The section, like its
predecessor s 216 of the 1926 Act, vested a court with a discretion to order a company
that had instituted action to furnish security for costs if there was reason to believe that
it would be unable to pay the costs of its opponent.

[10] The phrase 'if it appears that there is reason to believe' in s 13 placed a much
lighter burden of proof on an applicant for security.8 In terms of s 13, a two stage
enquiry was required. At the initial stage, and in order to discharge the onus, the
applicant for security had to adduce facts on which the court could conclude that there
was reason to believe that the plaintiff would be unable to satisfy an adverse costs
order. If the court could not come to such a conclusion that was the end of the matter
and the application was bound to be refused. However, if the court was satisfied that a
case had been made out, it had, at the second stage, to decide, in the exercise of its
discretion, whether or not to order the company to furnish security. (See MTN Service
Provider (Pty) Ltd v Afro Call (Pty) Ltd 2007 (6) SA 620 (SCA) at 622H.)

[11] Until Shepstone & Wylie and Others v Geyser NO 1998 (3) SA 1037 (SCA), the
approach adopted had been that although the court was not bound to order
security to be furnished, it should nevertheless do so unless special circumstances
exist. Hefer JA rejected that approach. He stated (at 1045I–1046A):
‗In my judgment, this is not how an application for security should be approached. Because a
Court should not fetter its own discretion in any manner and particularly not by adopting an
approach which brooks of no departure except in special circumstances, it must decide each

7 Hudson & Son v London Trading Company Ltd 1930 WLD 288 at 291; D R Harms Civil Procedure in the
Superior Courts (2014) para B47.16.
8 D R Harms op cit.

case upon a consideration of the relevant features, without adopting a predisposition either in
favour of or against granting security.‘

[12] The 1973 Companies Act has been repealed and replaced by the Companies Act
71 of 2008. Our most recent Companies Act, which ‗is a complete reinvention of our
corporate law‘,9 does not contain an equivalent provision to s 13. There have been
several decisions in which our high courts have recently had occasion to consider
whether, absent a counterpart to section 13 in our new Act, an incola company can be
ordered to furnish security for costs.10 Those decisions – or more accurately some –
have been discordant. Valuable as those decisions are, a discussion of each of them
would likely contribute to a judgment that is indigestible. We thus approach the problem
as if the matter is res nova. In doing so, we obviously draw on the benefits and insights
that a reading of those judgments has given.

[13] However, in the light of some of the views expressed in those decisions it may be
prudent to pass certain general observations. First, our courts now derive their power
from the Constitution itself,11 which in section 173 provides:
'The Constitutional Court, Supreme Court of Appeal and High Courts have the inherent power to
protect and regulate their own process, and to develop the common law, taking into account the
interests of justice.'
As it was put by the Constitutional Court in SABC Ltd v National Director of Public
Prosecutions and others:12

9 Per Brand JA in Newlands Surgical Clinic v Peninsula Eye Clinic [2015] ZASCA 25 (20 March 2015)
para 24.
10 Hiatas & Others v Port Wild Props 12 (Pty) Ltd 2011 (5) SA 562 (GSJ); Ngwenda Gold (Pty) Ltd &
Another v Precious Prospect Trading 80 (Pty) Ltd unreported case number 2011/31664 (GSJ); Genesis
on Fairmount Joint Venture v KNS Construction (Pty) Ltd & Others unreported judgment, 28 November
2012, case number 2012/36204, SGJ; Siemens Telecommunications (Pty) Ltd v Datagenics (Pty) Ltd
2013 (1) SA 65 (GNP); Hennie Lambrechts Architects v Bombenero Investments (Pty) Ltd 2013 (2) SA
477 (FB); Maigret (Pty) Ltd (in liquidation) v Command Holdings Ltd & Another 2013 (2) SA 481 (WCC)
Biochlor (Pty) Ltd v G E Betz South Africa (Pty) Ltd (A 710/2013) [2014] ZAGPPHC 1030 (12 December
2014). See also D E van Loggerenberg and J Malan 'Security for costs by local companies: Back to 1909
in the Transvaal, or not?' (2012) 75 THRHR 609; Van Loggerenberg & Farlam ‗Erasmus Superior Court
Practice‘ – Rule 47 Security for Costs.
11 Phillips and others v National Director of Public Prosecutions 2006 (1) SA 505 (CC) para 47.
12 SABC Ltd v NDPP 2007 (1) SA 523 (CC) para 35 and 36.

‗This is an important provision which recognises both the power of Courts to protect and
regulate their own process as well as their power to develop the common law. . . .  The power
recognised in s 173 is a key tool for Courts to ensure their own independence and impartiality. It
recognises that Courts have the inherent power to regulate and protect their own process. A
primary purpose for the exercise of that power must be to ensure that proceedings before
Courts are fair. It is therefore fitting that the only qualification on the exercise of that power
contained in section 173 is that Courts in exercising this power must take into account the
interests of justice.'
That our courts were endowed with such power even in our pre-constitutional era is
evident from the following dictum of Corbett JA:
'There is no doubt the Supreme Court possesses an inherent reservoir of power to regulate its
procedures in the interests of the proper administration of justice ....'13
According to the Constitutional Court:14
‗The task of a . . . Court in determining its own proceedings is an important one.  Its primary
constitutional responsibility is to ensure that the proceedings before it are fair and it must give
content to that obligation. This obligation has always been part of our law and is now
constitutionally enshrined as a fundamental right in s 35(3) of the Constitution. The task of
ensuring that the proceedings are fair will often require consideration of a range of principled
and practical factors, some of which may pull in different directions.‘
Second, it is a well-established principle of statutory construction that the legislature
must be taken to be aware of the nature and state of the law existing at the time when
legislation is passed.15 The omission of a similar provision to s 13 from the 2008 Act,
must therefore be taken (prima facie at least) to import a change of intention on the part
of the legislature. It must therefore follow that it is not open to a court to approach an
enquiry such as this as if the position is unaltered and that s 13 is still part of our law.
For, to do so may well result in a court impermissibly intruding into the domain of the
legislature. Third, it has been suggested that such a provision has been excluded
because its inclusion would limit the fundamental right of access to the courts as
enshrined in s 34 of the Constitution and would thereby be unconstitutional. But that
may be to ignore the fact that a court was vested with a discretion in terms s 13 and that

13 Universal City Studios Inc and others v Network Video (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 734 (A) at 754G.
14 SABC Ltd para 21.
15 Road Accident Fund v Monjane 2010 (3) SA 641 (SCA) para 12; Marine & Trade Insurance Co Ltd v
Workmen’s Compensation Commissioner 1972 (1) SA 535 (N) at 538D.

in exercising its discretion a court performs a balancing act. On the one hand it must
weigh the injustice to the plaintiff if prevented from pursuing a proper claim by an order
for security and against that it must weigh the injustice to the defendant if no security is
ordered and the plaintiff‘s claim fails and the defendant finds himself unable to recover
costs.16 Significantly, on that score, the European Court of Human Rights17 appears to
have inclined to the view that security for costs pursued a legitimate aim, namely to
protect a litigant from being faced with an irrecoverable bill for legal costs and since
regard was had to prospects of success the requirement could be said to have been
imposed in the interests of the fair administration of justice. It is also noteworthy that
back home, as long ago as Lombard it was stated by Bristowe J that the power to order
security for costs is a most reasonable one.18 Why the legislature saw fit to exclude it (or
a provision that mirrors it) is fortunately a debate that is not necessary for us to enter.
Fourth, s 39(2) of the Constitution makes plain that, when a court embarks upon a
course of developing the common law, it is obliged to ‗promote the spirit, purport and
objects of the Bill of Rights.‘ This ensures that the common law will evolve, within the
framework of the Constitution, consistently with the basic norms of the legal order that it
establishes. Faced with such a task, a court is obliged to undertake a two-stage enquiry.
It should ask itself whether, given the objectives of s 39(2), the existing common law
should be developed beyond existing precedent—if the answer to that question is in the
negative that should be the end of the enquiry. If not, the next enquiry should be how
the development should occur and which court should embark on that exercise.19  Fifth,
the omission of a provision akin to s 13 from the new Act is strange particularly since s 8
of the Close Corporations Act 69 of 1984, which has been interpreted in accordance

16 See Shepstone & Wylie at 1046A-C citing with approval the dictum of Peter Gibson LJ in Keary
Developments Ltd v Tarmac Construction Ltd [1995] 3 All ER 534 (CA) at 540a-b; see also Lappeman
Diamond Cutting Works v MIB Group (No 1) 1997 (4) SA 908 at 919G.
17 Tolstoy Miloslavsky v United Kingdom [1995] ECHR 18139/91.
18 More recently in Shepstone & Wylie (at 1046G–I), Hefer JA stated:
‗Let me say at the outset that the fact that an order of security will put an end to the litigation does not by
itself provide sufficient reason for refusing it. It is a possibility inherent in the very concept of a provision
like s 13 which comes into operation whenever it appears to the Court that the plaintiff or applicant will not
be able to pay the defendant or respondent‘s costs in the event of the latter being successful in his
defence. If there is no evidence either way, the mere possibility that the order will effectively terminate the
litigation can plainly not affect the Court‘s decision. It only becomes a factor once it is established as a
probability by the plaintiff or applicant. And, even if it is established, it remains no more than a factor to be
taken into account; by itself it does not provide sufficient reason for refusing an order.‘
19 City of Cape Town v SANRAL [2015] ZASCA 58 (30 March 2015) para 29.

with the principles that have evolved in relation to the corresponding provisions in the
previous Companies Act,20 has been retained. It follows that the principles pertaining to
the furnishing of security by a close corporation will henceforth differ from that
applicable to a company. Such incongruity as may arise from that dichotomy is no
invitation to a court to continue to approach an enquiry such as this in relation to a
company as if s 13 is still in force.

[14] The onus is on the party seeking security to persuade a court that security should
be ordered. As was the situation under s 13 in the past, a court in the exercise of its
discretion will have regard to: the nature of the claim; the financial position of the
company at the stage of the application for security; and its probable financial position
should it lose the action. The distinction to be drawn between the common law and that
which prevailed in terms of s 13 is described thus by Brand JA in MTN Service Provider
(Pty) Ltd v Afro Call (Pty) Ltd 2007 (6) SA 620 (SCA) paras 15–16:
‗Against an insolvent natural person, who is an incola, so it has been held, security will only be
granted if his or her action can be found to be reckless and vexatious (see Ecker v Dean 1938
AD 102 at 110). The reason for this limitation, so it was explained in Ecker (at 111), is that the
court‘s power to order security against an incola is derived from its inherent jurisdiction to
prevent abuse of its own process in certain circumstances. And this jurisdiction, said Solomon
JA in Western Assurance Co v Caldwell’s Trustee 1918 AD 262 at 274, ‗is a power which . . .
ought to be sparingly exercised and only in very exceptional circumstances. (See also eg
Ramsamy NO v Maarman NO 2002 (6) SA 159 (C) 173F–I). In the exercise of its discretion
under s 13 of the Companies Act, on the other hand, there is no reason why the court should
order security only in the exceptional case. On the contrary, as was stated in Shepstone & Wylie
v Geyser NO 1998 (3) SA 1037 (SCA) at 1045I–J, since the section presents the court with an
unfettered discretion, there is no reason to lean towards either granting or refusing a security
order.‘

[15] Accordingly, in terms of the common law mere inability by an incola to satisfy a
potential costs order is insufficient to justify an order for security, something more is
required (Ramsamy NO v Maarman NO 2002 (6) SA 159 (C) 172I-J). As Thring J put it

20 Henry v R E Design 1998 (2) SA 502 (CPD).

(Ramsamy NO at 172J-173A): ‗[w]hat this something is has been variously described in
a number of decisions. Thus in Ecker v Dean . . . it was said that the basis of granting
an order for security was that the action was ‗reckless and vexatious‘.‘  In Ecker v
Dean 1937 AD 254 at 259, Curlewis CJ stated:
‗In Western Assurance Co. v Caldwell’s Trustee (1918, A.D. 262) this Court laid down that a
Court of law had inherent jurisdiction to stop or prevent a vexatious action as being an abuse of
the process of the Court; one of the ways of doing so is by ordering the vexatious litigant to give
security for the costs of the other side, and I know of no reason why the Court below should not
have [exercised] such an inherent jurisdiction.‘
To once again borrow from De Villiers JP (Lombard at 877):
‗But, however, this may be the case of Mears v The Pretoria Estate and Market Co. is an
authority for the proposition that this Court has the power to settle a question of practice like the
present for itself. Innes, C.J., on page 956, is reported as follows: ―But after all, this is a question
of practice which this Court is justified in settling for itself; and I think that we should lay down
the rule that an insolvent ought to give security for costs in a case like the present.‖ And if that
be so, there can be no doubt as to what the practice should be. Where a company is in
liquidation it is sufficient ground for ordering security to be given; and when the company has
everything to gain and nothing to lose, as in the present case, it would be putting a premium
upon vexatious and speculative actions if such practice were not adopted.‘

[16] Absent s 13, there can no longer be any legitimate basis for differentiating
between an incola company and an incola natural person. And as our superior courts
have a residual discretion in a matter such as this arising from their inherent power to
regulate their own proceedings, it must follow that the former can at common law be
compelled to furnish security for costs. Accordingly, even though there may be poor
prospects of recovering costs, a court, in its discretion should only order the furnishing
of security for such costs by an incola company if it is satisfied that the contemplated
main action (or application) is vexatious or reckless or otherwise amounts to an abuse.

[17] According to Nicholas J in Fisheries Development Corp v Jorgensen 1979 (3) SA
1331 (W) at 1339E-F:
‗In its legal sense ―vexatious‖ means

―frivolous, improper: instituted without sufficient ground, to serve solely as an annoyance to the
defendant‖21 (Shorter Oxford English Dictionary). Vexatious proceedings would also no doubt
include proceedings which, although properly instituted, are continued with the sole purpose of
causing annoyance to the defendant;  ―abuse‖ connotes a mis-use, an improper use, a use mala
fide, a use for an ulterior motive.‘
In African Farms & Townships v C.T. Municipality 1963 (2) SA 555 (A) at 565D-E,
Holmes JA observed:
‗An action is vexatious and an abuse of the process of Court inter alia if it is obviously
unsustainable. This must appear as a certainty, and not merely on a preponderance of
probability. Ravden v Beeten, 1935 C.P.D. 269 at p. 276; Burnham v Fakheer, 1938 N.P.D. 63.‘

[18] African Farms & Townships was concerned with an application to strike out a
claim. Since the common law is reluctant to limit access to court, an application for
security for costs would seem to require a less stringent test than one for the stay of
vexatious proceedings; the latter ends unsustainable litigation whereas the former
contemplates the continuance of the proceedings with the safeguard of security for
costs.22 Thus in Fitchet v Fitchet 1987 (1) SA 450 (ECD) at 454E-G, Olivier J pointed
out that:
‗It may well be that, in applications for security for costs, the test should be somewhat different.
Where, in an application for dismissal of an action, the Court without hearing evidence on the
merits will require moral certainty alone that the action is unsustainable, in an application for
security for costs the merits test should be somewhat less stringent, and other factors, which
are irrelevant in a dismissal application, should be taken into account. I am therefore in
respectful agreement with the statement of Klopper J in Davidson’s Bakery (Pty) Ltd v Burger
1961 (1) SA 589 (O) at 593E, viz:
―Myns insiens is die meriete van eiser se aksie nie altyd deurslaggewend nie, maar slegs ‗n
faktor wat in oorweging geneem moet word. Daar kan gevalle wees waar die Hof
sekuriteitstelling sal verleen al word dit slegs bevind dat die kanse van welslae op die aksie
alleen twyfelagtig is sonder dat dit gesê kan word dat dit geen vooruitsigte van sukses inhou
nie.‖‘

21 Bisset v Boland Bank Ltd 1991 (4) SA 603 at 608D-E.
22 D R Harms Civil Procedure in the Superior Courts – Uniform Rule 47 – Instances where security can be
demanded B-339.

[19] In Golden International Navigation SA v Zeba Maritime 2008 (3) SA 10 (CPD)
para 18, Griesel J posited that the ordinary yardstick – a preponderance of probability –
should find application in an enquiry such as the present. In Ravden v Beeten 1935
CPD 269 at 276, Sutton J cited with approval the following dictum of Fletcher Moulton J
(Goodson v Grierson 1908 1 KB 761 at 764): ‗In my opinion that is limited to the case
where on the face of the pleadings it is shown that the action cannot be maintained and
is frivolous and vexatious‘.23 It is not envisaged, it seems to us, that a detailed
investigation of the merits of the case should be undertaken. Nor, is it contemplated that
there should be a close investigation of the facts in issue in the action. As it was put by
Streicher JA in Zietsman v Electronic Media Network Ltd 2008 (4) SA 1 (SCA) para 21:
‗I am not suggesting that a court should in an application for security attempt to resolve the
dispute between the parties. Such a requirement would frustrate the purpose for which security
is sought. The extent to which it is practicable to make an assessment of a party‘s prospects of
success would depend on the nature of the dispute in each case.‘

[20] Against that backdrop we turn to a consideration of the claim sought to be
advanced by the plaintiff against the defendant. In its particulars of claim the plaintiff
alleges:
‗3.
During or about July and August 2006 the plaintiff, represented by Jed Webber
(―Webber‖) introduced the defendant, represented by Rob Fleming (―Fleming‖) to the plaintiff‘s
Fans’ Challenge Sport concept (―the concept‖).
. . .
8.
Annexure ―B‖ [a document that purported to introduce the concept] was provided to
Fleming during July 2006 and annexure ―C‖ [an executive summary] was provided to Ireland
during September 2006.
. . .
11.
The concept is unique and constitutes confidential information.

23 Under consideration there was Order 25, rule 4, which provided: ‗The Court or a Judge may order any
pleading to be struck out, on the ground that it discloses no reasonable cause of action or answer, or in
any such case or in the case of the action or defence being shown by the pleadings to be frivolous or
vexatious the Court or a Judge may order the action to be stayed or dismissed, or judgment to be entered
according as may be just.‘

12.
The concept was disclosed to Fleming, Ireland and Minnaar in confidence and with the
intention that the plaintiff and the defendant would enter into a commercial relationship to utilise
the concept to their mutual financial benefit.
13.
Fleming, [. . .] orally accepted that the concept was disclosed to them in confidence,
constituted, confidential information and could not be used without the consent of the plaintiff.
14.
Fleming gave Webber an express undertaking that the defendant was a company with
high ethical standards and one that the plaintiff could trust. Webber accepted the undertaking
which, in the context of the disclosure of the concept, meant that:
14.1
the defendant agreed that the concept constituted confidential information; and
14.2
the defendant would not use the concept, directly or indirectly, without the consent of the
plaintiff.
15.
In the premises, the plaintiff and the defendant concluded an agreement on the terms
recorded in paragraphs 14.1 and 14.2 above (―the agreement‖).‘

[21] The plaintiff‘s pleaded case was thus that there was: (a) an oral acceptance on
behalf of the defendant that the concept was disclosed in confidence and constituted
confidential information (para 13); and, (b) a tacit undertaking that the concept
constituted confidential information (para 14). In both instances, so it is alleged, the
concept would not be used by the defendant without the consent of the plaintiff. Facially,
paragraphs 13 and 14 of the plaintiff‘s pleaded case appear incompatible. But assuming
in the plaintiff‘s favour that it is not or that in due course such incompatibility can be
overcome, the plaintiff alleges in paragraph 16 of its particulars of claim that ‗[t]he
defendant has breached the agreement in that . . . on or about 1 June 2011, unlawfully
using the concept without the consent of the plaintiff, it launched an event called “BE
THE COACH” under its Carling Black Label trade mark‘.

[22] The defendant‘s plea in answer to those allegations is:
‗3.1
The plaintiff, represented by Jed Webber (―Webber‖), and Rob Fleming (―Fleming‖), an
employee of the defendant, engaged in email correspondence during the course of July and
August 2006, a copy of which is attached marked ―P1‖.
3.2
During the course of that exchange, the plaintiff provided an ―executive summary‖
relating to the Fan’s Challenge Sport concept (the ―concept‖) to the defendant in the absence of

any undertaking by the defendant to maintain the alleged confidentiality of the concept. The
executive summary is an attachment to the email exchange attached as P1.‘
The exchange of emails relied on by the defendant makes interesting reading. On 12
July 2006 Jed Webber on behalf of the plaintiff wrote to Rob Fleming, the sponsorship
manager of the defendant:
‗Further to our conversation earlier today I have attached an NDA [non disclosure agreement]
for you to consider. It is a standard NDA to protect both parties which should enable us to enter
into candid discussion.
. . .
If the NDA is acceptable to you I will forward an executive summary highlighting the essence of
the Concept and I look forward to discussing the way forward. . . .‘
On 26 July Mr Fleming replied:
‗I am not happy to sign a cont[r]act that prevents me from making use of an activity that I might
have been exposed to/thought of etc etc. it is too restrictive.
SAB is a company with high ethical standards and one that you can trust.‘
Undaunted, on 28 July Mr Webber wrote:
‗. . . we fully understand SABMiller‘s position, but you need to appreciate our position too in that
we are discussing and divulging very sensitive Intellectual Property . . .
We are happy to send you a two page summary for you to consider before any form of NDA is
signed. We have utmost respect for SABMiller, your good standing as a company and global
brand, but feel that it is reasonable as well as good business practice to be able to expect at
least some sort of written undertaking that what we divulge and discuss remains highly
confidential, from the perspective of both parties.‘
On 31 July 2006 Mr Webber despatched the executive summary to Mr Fleming. After
receipt of the executive summary on 21 August 2006, Mr Fleming wrote:
‗Thanks for the mail. After reading your exec summary, I still don‘t believe there is a need to me
to sign confidentiality contracts. It looks like an interesting concept but I certainly don‘t want to
make any binding commitments right now.‘
What those emails reveal is that Mr Webber appears to have disclosed the executive
summary in the face of a refusal by Mr Fleming to sign a confidentiality undertaking.

[23] Further, in his answering affidavit in opposition to the application for security, Mr
Webber stated:

‗21.8 I was undeterred and determined to pitch the details of the concept to Mr Fleming. To
this end I arranged to have a telephone conversation with him. I called Mr Fleming on 24 August
2006.
21.10 Mr Fleming reiterated that the plaintiff could trust the defendant. I apologized and stated
that I was sure he understood that the plaintiff needed an assurance that the defendant would
not use the concept without the plaintiff‘s permission. Mr Fleming gave me his assurance that
the information that I was about to impart to him (the concept), would be received by him on a
strictly private and confidential basis and would not be used without the consent of the plaintiff.‘
But that, so contends the defendant, is not the case pleaded by the plaintiff in its
particulars of claim. The defendant asserts that if regard is had to the exchange of
emails, by 24 August 2006, the concept had already been disclosed by Mr Webber to
Mr Fleming. Accordingly, so the contention proceeds, the case asserted under oath in
this application is at odds with the plaintiff‘s pleaded case and, in addition, the plaintiff‘s
pleaded case is not supported by the emails. It is, inter alia, for these reasons that the
defendant denies the existence of the agreement as alleged by the plaintiff.

[24] Moreover, the defendant pleads24 that the information comprising the fans
challenge concept was disclosed in a patent application filed in terms of the Patent Co-
operation Treaty (PCT) and assigned patent number PCT/US01/25784 (the PCT
Patent). In dealing with this defence, Mr Webber stated in his answering affidavit: ‗I
deny the existence of the alleged patent or that it was public knowledge or public
property or that it was in the public domain‘. The priority date of the PCT patent is 28
August 2000. It bears an international publication date of 7 March 2002. According to
the defendant the concept was thus available internationally. Moreover, South Africa is
one of the National Designated States in the PCT patent. In terms of s 43B of the
Patents Act 57 of 1978, ‗an International Application designating the Republic shall be

24 In that regard the defendant‘s plea reads:
‗6.1
The defendant denies that Boost Sports International Limited was at any time the owner of the
rights in the concept.
6.2
The defendant pleads that the concept was in the public domain prior to the date on which the
executive summary relating to the concept was first provided to the defendant and was not therefore
proprietary to the plaintiff or its purported predecessors in title, or to any person at that date.
In support of the aforegoing, the defendant will rely on the disclosures in PCT patent application WO
02/19206 published in March 2002, a copy of which is attached marked ―P2‖.‘

deemed to be an application for a patent lodged at the patent office in terms of this Act.‘
It is therefore clear according to the defendant that the plaintiff‘s concept was neither
unique nor confidential as at the date on which the plaintiff alleges that the parties
entered into a confidentiality regime in respect of the concept.

[25] It remains to add that the plaintiff has dismally failed to show that an order
compelling it to furnish security will have the effect of it being forced to terminate its
action. The lack of candour by the plaintiff‘s shareholders, who are funding the plaintiff‘s
litigation but are unwilling to assist it in putting up security for the defendant‘s costs, is
telling. It is not in dispute that the plaintiff does not trade and that it has no assets.
Moreover, it will not be in a position to meet an adverse costs order should one
ultimately be granted against it. Of the plaintiff`s four shareholders, two are
professionals – one is an architect and the other a legal advisor. Of the remaining two,
one is an entrepreneur and the other an estate agent. They claim not to have the
resources to furnish any security (irrespective of the amount) for costs. The picture that
emerges is that although these shareholders are funding the litigation, they are doing so
in a manner that allows them to hide behind the corporate veil of the plaintiff. No
evidence has been adduced by them that there has been an attempt to raise funds to
put up security for the respondent‘s costs, but that they have been unable to do so. That
reticence to take the court into their confidence should inexorably lead to the inference
that the shareholders, who authorised the litigation on behalf of the plaintiff,
impecunious as it was, are shielding behind an empty shell in order to avoid liability for
costs.25

[26] In MTN Service Provider para 20, Brand JA pointed out that:
‗One of the very mischiefs s 13 is intended to curb, is that those who stand to benefit from
successful litigation by a plaintiff company will be prepared to finance the company‘s own
litigation, but will shield behind its corporate identity when it is ordered to pay the successful
defendant‘s costs. A plaintiff company that seeks to rely on the probability that a security order
will exclude it from the court, must therefore adduce evidence that it will be unable to furnish

25 Kini Bay Village Association v Nelson Mandela Metropolitan Municipality [2008] 4 All SA 50 (SCA) para
15.

security; not only from its own resources, but also from outside sources such as shareholders or
creditors (see eg Lappeman Diamond Cutting Works (Pty) Ltd v MIB Group (Pty) Ltd (No 1)
1997 (4) SA 908 (W) 920G-J; Keary Developments at 540f-j; Shepstone & Wylie at 1047A-B;
Giddey NO at paras 30, 33 and 34).‘
Notwithstanding the obsolescence of s 13, that mischief remains.

[27] In the language of Lombard (at 877), when a company has everything to gain
and nothing to lose, it would be putting a premium upon vexatious and speculative
actions if such practice (namely, compelling security) were not adopted. In Re Alluvial
Creek Ltd 1929 CPD 532 at 535, Gardiner J said in the context of a punitive costs order:
‗Now sometimes such an order is given because of something in the conduct of a party which
the Court considers should be punished, malice, misleading the Court and things like that, but I
think the order may also be granted without any reflection upon the party where the proceedings
are vexatious, and by vexatious I mean where they have the effect of being vexatious, although
the intent may not have been that they should be vexatious. There are people who enter into
litigation with the most upright purpose and a most firm belief in the justice of their cause, and
yet whose proceedings may be regarded as vexatious when they put the other side to
unnecessary trouble and expense which the other side ought not to bear.‘

[28] It follows, for the reasons given, that there is no warrant for interfering on appeal
with the discretion exercised by the high court (as to which see Giddey NO v JC
Barnard and Partners 2007 (5) SA 525 (CC)) in ordering the plaintiff to furnish security
for the costs of the proceedings instituted by it against the defendant.

[29] In the result the appeal must fail and it is dismissed with costs, including those
consequent upon the employment of two counsel.

_________________
V M Ponnan
Judge of Appeal

_________________
B H Mbha
Judge of Appeal

APPEARANCES:

For Appellant:

M Antonie SC

Instructed by:

Spoor & Fisher, Pretoria

Matsepe‘s Inc., Bloemfontein

For Respondent:

P Ginsburg SC (with him GD Marriott)

Instructed by:

Adams & Adams, Pretoria

Honey & Partners Inc., Bloemfontein

THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA

MEDIA SUMMARY OF JUDGMENT DELIVERED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL

FROM

The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal

DATE

1 June 2015

STATUS

Immediate

Please note that the media summary is for the benefit of the media and does not form part of
the judgment.

Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd v The South Africa Breweries (Pty) Ltd (20156/2014)
[2015] ZASCA 93 (1 June 2015)

MEDIA STATEMENT

Today the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) dismissed a appeal by Boost Sports Africa (Pty) Ltd
(the plaintiff) and upheld an order of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, in terms of
which the plaintiff was required to furnish security for the legal costs of the South African Breweries
(Pty) Ltd (the defendant) in respect of an action instituted by the plaintiff against the defendant for
breach of contract.

The issue before the SCA was whether an incola company can be compelled to furnish security for
costs in light of the fact that the new Companies Act 71 of 2008 did not contain a similar provision to s
13 of the previous Companies Act 61 of 1973 that expressly catered for that.

The facts of the case are as follows. The plaintiff instituted an action in October 2011 against the
defendant for breach of contract, alleging that the defendant had breached a confidentiality
agreement and had used certain intellectual property belonging to the plaintiff when conducting an
advertising event called ‘be the coach’ under its Carling Black Label trademark. The defendant
opposed the action, and upon investigating the plaintiff discovered that it owned no immovable
property, owned no significant tangible assets, and was not actively trading. Flowing from this, the
defendant became concerned that the plaintiff would be unable to meet an adverse costs order
should the action be dismissed.  Accordingly, the defendant instituted an application in the court a
quo, for an order that the plaintiff provide security for costs, which application was granted.

On appeal, the SCA held that although there was no corresponding provision to s 13 in the new
Companies Act a court did have the inherent power to regulate its own proceedings and that an
incola company, like an incola natural person, could accordingly be compelled to furnish security for
costs, but only if the court was satisfied that the contemplated main action (or application) is
vexatious or reckless or otherwise amounts to an abuse.

On the facts, the SCA found that the litigation was being funded by the shareholders of the plaintiff in
a manner that suggested that they were trying to hide behind the corporate veil of the plaintiff. They
were acting a manner where they would benefit fully if the litigation was successful, while attracting
no risk in the event of the action being unsuccessful action . Accordingly, the SCA upheld the court a
quo’s order that the plaintiff furnish security for costs.

-- ends ---