Jamieson v Sabingo (329/2000) [2002] ZASCA 20; [2002] 3 All SA 392 (A); 2002 (4) SA 49 (SCA) (27 March 2002)

Jamieson v Sabingo (329/2000) [2002] ZASCA 20; [2002] 3 All SA 392 (A); 2002 (4) SA 49 (SCA) (27 March 2002)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the purpose of attachment to confirm jurisdiction is to ensure the court can give an effective judgment. Where a defendant voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction, whether unilaterally or bilaterally, the judgment will be internationally enforceable and binds the whole property of the judgment debtor. Therefore, the necessity for attachment falls away upon voluntary submission, regardless of whether the submission is unilateral or bilateral. The timing of the submission is also critical; if submission occurs before the attachment is executed, attachment is not necessary. The appellant's argument that unilateral submission should not deprive...

Citation
[2002] ZASCA 20
Parties
Appellant: Neil Jamieson; Respondent: Amindo Cesar Sabingo
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 March 2002
Case Number
329/2000
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Discharge of Rule Nisi in High Court
Outcome
The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
Judges
Nienaber, Farlam, Navsa, Mthiyane, Lewis
Legal Topics
Attachment to Confirm Jurisdiction, Submission to Jurisdiction, Actor Sequitur Forum Rei, Effectiveness of Judgment
Civil Procedure Attachment to Confirm Jurisdiction Submission to Jurisdiction Actor Sequitur Forum Rei Effectiveness of Judgment

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 4 Authorities cited 21 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Neil Jamieson

Appellant

Amindo Cesar Sabingo

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Discharge of Rule Nisi in High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether attachment to confirm jurisdiction is permissible where the defendant voluntarily submits to jurisdiction after the attachment order but before execution.
  2. 2 Whether unilateral submission to jurisdiction by a peregrinus defendant deprives the plaintiff of the right to attachment.
  3. 3 Whether timing of submission affects the necessity or permissibility of attachment.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the purpose of attachment to confirm jurisdiction is to ensure the court can give an effective judgment. Where a defendant voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction, whether unilaterally or bilaterally, the judgment will be internationally enforceable and binds the whole property of the judgment debtor. Therefore, the necessity for attachment falls away upon voluntary submission, regardless of whether the submission is unilateral or bilateral. The timing of the submission is also critical; if submission occurs before the attachment is executed, attachment is not necessary. The appellant's argument that unilateral submission should not deprive...

Court Disposition

The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those occasioned by the employment of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including those occasioned by the employment of two counsel.