Civil ProcedureSecurity for CostsPeregrinus Requirements
Keywords
peregrinussecurity for costsurgent applicationinterdictcontempt of courtcoke oven battery plant
Tags
urgent chamber applicationsecurity for costsperegrinusinterdictcontempt of court
legislation
Statutes Cited
High Court Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether a peregrinus applicant must furnish security for costs before proceeding with an urgent chamber application","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Applicant is foreign company; offered plant as security; no immovable property offered"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plant offered by applicant can constitute adequate security for costs","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Plant allegedly on verge of collapsing; no alternative security offered"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a foreign company, brought an urgent chamber application seeking to enforce a previous interdict order. The first to fifth respondents raised a point in limine that the applicant, being a peregrinus, must furnish security for costs before proceeding with the application.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases