Lindsey and Others v Conteh (774/2022) [2024] ZASCA 13; 2024 (3) SA 68 (SCA) (6 February 2024)

Lindsey and Others v Conteh (774/2022) [2024] ZASCA 13; 2024 (3) SA 68 (SCA) (6 February 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Californian court orders and writs did not constitute a money judgment but rather a judgment for the delivery of shares. Although Californian law permits enforcement of such orders as a money judgment if the property cannot be obtained, this does not convert the original judgment into a liquid document evidencing unconditional indebtedness for a fixed sum of money. South African courts do not apply foreign procedural rules for enforcement and require the judgment itself to be a liquid document for provisional sentence. The appellants’ summons sought provisional sentence based on a foreign judgment that was not a money judgment, and thus the...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 13
Parties
Appellant: James R Lindsey; Appellant: The Lindsey Family Trust; Appellant: William Buck Johns; Appellant: Marc Van Antro; Appellant: Wymont Services Limited; Appellant: African Wireless Incorporated; Respondent: Alieu Badara Mohamed Conteh (substituted by Brigette van Geesbergen Conteh in her capacity as Curatrix Bonis)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 February 2024
Case Number
774/2022
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
Saldulker, Hughes, Mabindla-Boqwana, Matojane, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Enforcement of Foreign Judgments, Provisional Sentence, Liquid Documents, Derivative Actions, Shareholder Disputes, Private International Law
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Public International Law Enforcement of Foreign Judgments Provisional Sentence Liquid Documents Derivative Actions Shareholder Disputes +1 more

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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

James R Lindsey

Appellant

The Lindsey Family Trust

Appellant

William Buck Johns

Appellant

Marc Van Antro

Appellant

Wymont Services Limited

Appellant

African Wireless Incorporated

Appellant

Alieu Badara Mohamed Conteh (substituted by Brigette van Geesbergen Conteh in her capacity as Curatrix Bonis)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Californian court orders and writs constitute a liquid document enforceable by way of provisional sentence in South Africa.
  2. 2 Whether the foreign judgment is a money judgment or merely a judgment for delivery of shares.
  3. 3 Whether extrinsic evidence is permissible to establish liquidity for provisional sentence proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Californian court orders and writs did not constitute a money judgment but rather a judgment for the delivery of shares. Although Californian law permits enforcement of such orders as a money judgment if the property cannot be obtained, this does not convert the original judgment into a liquid document evidencing unconditional indebtedness for a fixed sum of money. South African courts do not apply foreign procedural rules for enforcement and require the judgment itself to be a liquid document for provisional sentence. The appellants’ summons sought provisional sentence based on a foreign judgment that was not a money judgment, and thus the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.