IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

Case No: 18974/2008 & 14918/2008

In the matter between:

IOLA MAHON					Applicant
	
and

BRIAN ROBERT MAHON				 Respondent

CORAM					:	D M DAVIS J 

JUDGMENT BY				:	DAVIS J 

FOR THE APPLICANT		:	ADV D MITCHELL (SC) &
ADV F J GORDON-	TURNER

INSTRUCTED BY				:	GUTHRIE & RUSHTON ATT.

FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT		:	ADV A KATZ & 
ADV J THAYSEN

INSTRUCTED BY				:	MAURICE PHILLIPS 
WISENBERG

DATE OF HEARINGS			:	21 NOVEMBER 2008

DATE OF JUDGMENT			:	21 DECEMBER 2008  

REPORTABLE
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(CAPE OF GOOD HOPE PROVINCIAL DIVISION)

In the matter between:

And

JUDGMENT

[1] 	This is an application to compel respondents to furnish security for costs. The case has a somewhat unfortunate history. Briefly stated, on 19 March 2008 the Family Division of the High Court of Justice in England granted certain ancillary relief orders in favour of applicant in divorce proceedings. The orders were supplemented and made final by the Court on 23 April 2008. Respondent sought to appeal the judgment and this application for leave to appeal was refused by the Court of Appeal on 24 June 2008.

[3]	Two further pieces of litigation have flown therefrom: firstly an application for leave to appeal which is pending and secondly an application in which respondent argues that the provisional sentence summons is inconsistent with provisions of the Republic of South Africa Constitution Act, 108 of 1996.

[8]	Both of these particular arguments can be disposed of in the same fashion. There is an affidavit by the respondent in which he asserts that he is permanently resident and domiciled in Mauritius. Whatever the applicant may have said in the provisional sentence proceedings, the respondent deposes to an affidavit to the fact that he is permanently resident and domiciled in Mauritius. What further proof is required? Is this Court to find against the applicant and in favour of respondent by effectively saying the respondent has lied on oath? I do not think that a Court should countenance this kind of defence and I am not prepared to so do.

[14] For all of these reasons, the application is granted and the respondent is   directed to furnish security for applicant's costs in this application brought   by respondent under case number 14918/2008 by no later than Friday 5 December, 2008, If the security is not granted, then the application brought by the applicant under case number 14918/2008 shall be dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs of two counsel. The respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application, although I consider one counsel would have been sufficient. I therefore order respondent to pay the costs of one counsel.