Koopman v Minister of Police

The applicant, Ms Iris Koopman, is an unemployed woman living in an informal settlement in Kuruman with no material assets. In March 2015, she was arrested without a warrant for alleged common assault and detained for two days with her infant child. She sued the Minister of Police in the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, for unlawful arrest and detention. The high court dismissed her claim and refused leave to appeal on 29 September 2022. Ms Koopman petitioned the Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) under s 17(2)(b) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, and the SCA granted leave to appeal to the full court on 12 December 2022. Neither party raised security for costs at the petition stage or thereafter. Shortly before the full court hearing in May 2025, the Minister declined to waive security. The full court removed the appeal from the roll, taking the view that it lacked competence to deal with the matter and that the SCA had to rule on the security issue first. The Minister did not raise security under Rules 30 or 30A of the Uniform Rules at any stage and did not oppose the application before the SCA.

• Whether condonation should be granted for the applicant's failure to seek release from the obligation to furnish security for costs when she petitioned the SCA in October 2022.
• Whether Rule 49(13) of the Uniform Rules of Court applies to an appeal where leave to appeal to the full court was granted by the SCA rather than by a judge of the high court.
• If Rule 49(13) applies, whether the applicant should be released from the obligation to furnish security for costs.

1. Condonation is granted to the applicant for her failure to apply for release from the obligation to furnish security for costs when she petitioned the SCA in October 2022. 2. It is declared that Rule 49(13) of the Uniform Rules of Court does not apply to the prosecution of the applicant's appeal before the Full Court of the Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria, and that the applicant is not obliged to furnish security for costs in terms of that rule. 3. The costs of the application are to be costs in the appeal.

Rule 49(13) of the Uniform Rules of Court is confined in its application to high court proceedings, and the term 'court' in the Uniform Rules does not include the Supreme Court of Appeal. Where the Supreme Court of Appeal grants leave to appeal to a full court under s 17(2)(b) of the Superior Courts Act, Rule 49(13) does not apply and its security obligation is not triggered. Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Appeal constitutes a discrete discretionary regime for security for costs that requires a respondent's request and an order of the Court; absent both, no obligation to furnish security arises.

The court observed, in the alternative, that enforcing a security-for-costs requirement in these circumstances would permanently foreclose the appeal and would constitute an unjustifiable limitation of the right of access to courts entrenched in s 34 of the Constitution. It also noted that the applicant's grounds of appeal raised genuine and unresolved questions of law, and that the uncontested facts would, on the alternative ground, have favoured her release from any security obligation.

The judgment clarifies the interaction between Rule 49(13) of the Uniform Rules of Court and Rule 9 of the Rules of the Supreme Court of Appeal. It establishes that no automatic obligation to furnish security for costs arises when the SCA grants leave to appeal to a full court, disagreeing with the approach in Strouthos v Shear. The decision protects litigants, particularly indigent appellants, from being barred from the appellate process by procedural technicalities, thereby safeguarding the right of access to courts under s 34 of the Constitution. It also reaffirms that subordinate legislation made by the Rules Board cannot confer jurisdiction on a superior court.