Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika (Bpk) v Freitas en Ander (6341/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 107 (26 October 2009)

Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika (Bpk) v Freitas en Ander (6341/2008) [2009] ZAFSHC 107 (26 October 2009)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the specific requirement for a Mareva-type interim interdict, namely, that the first respondent was dissipating or intended to dissipate assets with the intention of defeating the applicant's claim. The respondent demonstrated ownership of other substantial assets in South Africa, including immovable property in Langenhovenpark, which was confirmed by documentation attached to the applicant's own founding papers. The applicant did not dispute these facts in reply. There was no evidence that the respondent was attempting to dispose of these assets to frustrate execution of any judgment. The court held that the applicant had not made...

Citation
[2009] ZAFSHC 107
Parties
Applicant: Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika Beperk; Respondent: Anthony Harris Freitas; Respondent: Vermaak en Dennis Prokureurs
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2009
Case Number
6341/2008
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs.
Judges
C. Van Zyl, R
Legal Topics
Mareva Injunction, Interim Interdict, Suretyship, Urgent Application Procedure, Jurisdiction, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Banking and Finance Mareva Injunction Interim Interdict Suretyship Urgent Application Procedure Jurisdiction Costs Order

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Standard Bank van Suid-Afrika Beperk

Applicant

Anthony Harris Freitas

Respondent

Vermaak en Dennis Prokureurs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Day of Rule Nisi; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to an interim interdict (Mareva-type) preventing the first respondent from disposing of the proceeds of the sale of immovable property pending finalisation of the main action.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has established the requirements for a non-vindicatory interim interdict, including a prima facie right, irreparable harm, balance of convenience, absence of alternative remedy, and mala fide intention to defeat creditors.
  3. 3 Whether the court has jurisdiction over the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish the specific requirement for a Mareva-type interim interdict, namely, that the first respondent was dissipating or intended to dissipate assets with the intention of defeating the applicant's claim. The respondent demonstrated ownership of other substantial assets in South Africa, including immovable property in Langenhovenpark, which was confirmed by documentation attached to the applicant's own founding papers. The applicant did not dispute these facts in reply. There was no evidence that the respondent was attempting to dispose of these assets to frustrate execution of any judgment. The court held that the applicant had not made...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged with costs.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged, with costs.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs occasioned by the notice of anticipation of the return date, including the costs of 21 October 2008.