Maboka v Raymico and Another (J 1490/23) [2023] ZALCJHB 331 (16 November 2023)
- Citation
- [2023] ZALCJHB 331
- Status
- Judgment
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Norton
- Case number
- J 1490/23
More details
- Court
- Labour Court Johannesburg
- Panel
- Norton
- Case number
- J 1490/23
On this page
Professional case brief
Research organized from the available case record
01
Holding and result
The court found that the Toyota Fortuner sought to be attached is registered in the name of Raynier Jordaan in his private capacity and not in the name of Raymico (Pty) Ltd, the employer against whom the CCMA award was made. As a result, the vehicle is not an asset of the company and cannot be attached to satisfy the company's debt. The distinction between the assets of a company and those of its director is fundamental, and the applicant failed to establish any legal basis for piercing the corporate veil or treating the director's property as that of the company.
Court disposition
Application to attach the vehicle dismissed.
Orders
- The vehicle with registration [...] may not be attached for execution purposes.
02
Material facts
Parties
Siphiwe Maboka
ApplicantRaymico (Pty) Ltd
RespondentRaynier Jordaan
RespondentAmounts and remedies
- CCMA Award Amount: ZAR 60,000
03
Procedural history
Posture
Urgent Application / Ex Tempore Judgment
04
Questions and positions
Legal issues
- 01
Whether the Toyota Fortuner registered to Raynier Jordaan may be attached to satisfy the CCMA award against Raymico (Pty) Ltd.
- 02
Whether the vehicle constitutes an asset of the employer company for purposes of execution.
Party arguments
- Applicant
- The applicant sought to attach the Toyota Fortuner registered to Raynier Jordaan in order to satisfy the monetary award granted by the CCMA for unfair dismissal and back pay.
- Respondent
- The respondent argued that the vehicle is owned by Raynier Jordaan in his private capacity and is not an asset of Raymico (Pty) Ltd, the employer. Therefore, it cannot be attached to satisfy the company's debt.
05
Court’s reasoning
Legal principles
- 01
Common law principle of execution
Only assets belonging to the judgment debtor may be attached in execution of a judgment or award.
- 02
Salomon v A Salomon & Co Ltd [1897] AC 22 (HL)
A director's personal property is distinct from the assets of the company, even if the director is the sole shareholder.
06
Ratio, limits and disposition
Ratio decidendi
The court found that the Toyota Fortuner sought to be attached is registered in the name of Raynier Jordaan in his private capacity and not in the name of Raymico (Pty) Ltd, the employer against whom the CCMA award was made. As a result, the vehicle is not an asset of the company and cannot be attached to satisfy the company's debt. The distinction between the assets of a company and those of its director is fundamental, and the applicant failed to establish any legal basis for piercing the corporate veil or treating the director's property as that of the company.
Obiter and limits
- The court noted that the applicant must seek execution only against assets belonging to the judgment debtor and not those of third parties.
- The distinction between company assets and those of its directors is well established and must be respected in execution proceedings.
Court disposition
Application to attach the vehicle dismissed.
- The vehicle with registration [...] may not be attached for execution purposes.
Source and reliance status
Labour Court Johannesburg
This page organises the available record for research. Confirm quotations, current status, and subsequent treatment against the official source before relying on the case.
Judgment reading view
Judgment text
The complete available source text.
Labour Court Johannesburg
Judgment
SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not Reportable
case no: J 1490/23
In the matter between:
MRS
SE DHLAMINI
SIPHIWE
MABOKA Plaintiff And
RAYMICO Defendant
RAINIER
JORDAAN Claimant
Heard: 16 November 2023
Delivered: 16 November 2023
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
NORTON, AJ
Introduction
[1] On 7 June 2023, the Sheriff of Centurion East sought to attach a Toyota Fortuner with registration [...] to satisfy the sum of R 60,000.00 (sixty thousand rand) due to Siphiwe Maboka following his dismissal by Raymico (Pty) Ltd, the employer.
[2] The CCMA had on 31 May 2020 handed down a default judgment award under case number GATW 3769-20, ordering the company Raymico (Pty) Ltd to pay Maboko R60,000.00 (less tax) with respect to back pay by no later than 10 June 2020. Reinstatement was also ordered with immediate effect.
[3] The sole director of Raymico (Pty) Ltd is Raynier Jordaan. He is the owner of the vehicle as per the certificate of registration.
[4] The vehicle may not be attached as it belongs to Mr. Jordaan in his private capacity. It is not an asset belonging to the company or employer.
[5] In the circumstances, I make the following order:
Order
1. The vehicle with registration [...] may not be attached for execution purposes.
D Norton
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
Case-aware research
Ask AI about this case
The judgment and available research above are public. New questions open in a separate private conversation grounded in this case.