Showroom Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ronald Kagan

The matter arose from long‑running litigation between the parties concerning a R1 million advance made by the respondent to the first or second applicant, of which R220 000 had been repaid. The respondent had previously instituted and withdrawn several proceedings against the applicants, with multiple costs orders made against him, some of which remained unpaid or untaxed at various stages. In November 2021 the respondent instituted a fresh action to recover the outstanding balance. The applicants failed to deliver a plea timeously and became ipso facto barred. Instead of pleading, they launched an application to stay the action pending payment of outstanding costs and sought, in anticipation, the upliftment of the bar. The respondent paid the outstanding taxed costs shortly after the stay application was launched. The High Court dismissed the applicants’ claim for the costs of the stay application and refused to uplift the bar. Leave to appeal was refused by two judges of the Supreme Court of Appeal, prompting the present application for reconsideration under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act.

The application for reconsideration was granted, but the application for leave to appeal was dismissed with costs.

The judgment clarifies the principles governing reconsideration of refusals of leave to appeal under s 17(2)(f) of the Superior Courts Act. It reaffirms that unpaid costs do not automatically entitle a litigant to a stay of proceedings and emphasises the discretionary nature of both stay applications and costs orders. The case also confirms that an applicant seeking upliftment of a bar must establish good cause, including a bona fide defence, regardless of strategic decisions taken during litigation. The decision underscores the balance between preventing abuse of process and protecting the constitutional right of access to courts.