Jamco Supplies CC v Preference Capital (Pty) Ltd (2025/103438) [2025] ZAGPJHC 758 (29 July 2025)

Jamco Supplies CC v Preference Capital (Pty) Ltd (2025/103438) [2025] ZAGPJHC 758 (29 July 2025)

The court held that the perfection order granted to the respondent did not authorise the respondent or the sheriff to deny the applicant access to its business premises or to prevent it from trading. The language of the order was clear and did not contain any provision permitting the locking of the premises or exclusion of the applicant. The respondent could have sought such relief in its perfection application or approached the court for further relief, but failed to do so. The respondent's reliance on Contract Forwarding was misplaced, as the facts and the terms of the order in that case were distinguishable. The applicant had undertaken not to deal with the attached assets, and the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 758
Parties
Applicant: Jamco Supplies CC; Respondent: Preference Capital (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 July 2025
Case Number
2025/103438
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to provide access to premises and pay costs.
Judges
BC Wanless
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Perfection of Notarial Bond, Access to Business Premises, Interpretation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgent Interdict Perfection of Notarial Bond Access to Business Premises Interpretation of Court Orders

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jamco Supplies CC

Applicant

Preference Capital (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was entitled to deny the applicant access to its business premises under the perfection order.
  2. 2 Whether the sheriff, acting for the respondent, could lawfully lock the applicant out of its premises.
  3. 3 Whether the perfection order granted previously authorised the respondent to secure the premises and prevent trading by the applicant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the perfection order granted to the respondent did not authorise the respondent or the sheriff to deny the applicant access to its business premises or to prevent it from trading. The language of the order was clear and did not contain any provision permitting the locking of the premises or exclusion of the applicant. The respondent could have sought such relief in its perfection application or approached the court for further relief, but failed to do so. The respondent's reliance on Contract Forwarding was misplaced, as the facts and the terms of the order in that case were distinguishable. The applicant had undertaken not to deal with the attached assets, and the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to provide access to premises and pay costs.

Orders

  • The applicant's non-compliance with rules relating to form, time and service is condoned and the application is heard as one of urgency.
  • The respondent is to take all reasonable steps to ensure the applicant is given access to the business premises at Unit 4, 120 Main Road, Anderbolt, Boksburg within three days of service of this order.