Sheriff, Pretoria East v Meevis (286/98) [2000] ZASCA 190; [2001] 1 All SA 10 (A); 2001 (3) SA 454 (SCA) (29 September 2000)

Sheriff, Pretoria East v Meevis (286/98) [2000] ZASCA 190; [2001] 1 All SA 10 (A); 2001 (3) SA 454 (SCA) (29 September 2000)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sheriff unlawfully attached jewellery belonging to the respondent, a third party, after judgment had been given against Smithers. The jewellery was provided as security for Smithers's appearance in court and was not intended to satisfy any judgment debt. Once judgment was delivered, the respondent was entitled to the return of her jewellery. The sheriff's attachment was unlawful as it did not fall within the permissible circumstances outlined in Weeks v Amalgamated Agencies, Ltd. The court found that, but for the unlawful attachment, the jewellery would have been returned to the respondent before the robbery occurred, and thus the sheriff's...

Citation
[2000] ZASCA 190
Parties
Appellant: P Coetzee (Sheriff, Pretoria East); Respondent: F E Meevis
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2000
Case Number
286/98
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. The sheriff is liable to compensate the respondent for the loss of her jewellery.
Judges
Van Heerden, Smalberger, Vivier, Zulman, Melunsky
Legal Topics
Wrongful Attachment, Sheriff Liability, Causation, Security for Appearance, Interpleader Procedure
Civil Procedure Land and Property Delict Wrongful Attachment Sheriff Liability Causation Security for Appearance Interpleader Procedure

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

P Coetzee (Sheriff, Pretoria East)

Appellant

F E Meevis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the sheriff is liable for the loss of jewellery belonging to a third party following its unlawful attachment.
  2. 2 Whether the attachment of the jewellery was lawful under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the wrongful attachment was the factual cause of the respondent's loss.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the sheriff unlawfully attached jewellery belonging to the respondent, a third party, after judgment had been given against Smithers. The jewellery was provided as security for Smithers's appearance in court and was not intended to satisfy any judgment debt. Once judgment was delivered, the respondent was entitled to the return of her jewellery. The sheriff's attachment was unlawful as it did not fall within the permissible circumstances outlined in Weeks v Amalgamated Agencies, Ltd. The court found that, but for the unlawful attachment, the jewellery would have been returned to the respondent before the robbery occurred, and thus the sheriff's...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. The sheriff is liable to compensate the respondent for the loss of her jewellery.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • The appellant is liable to the respondent for the loss of the jewellery.