South Africa Case Law

T.S v J.V.C.P and Another (20783/24)

T.S v J.V.C.P and Another (20783/24) [2025] ZAWCHC 325 (1 August 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20783/24

Judge

Njokweni

The applicant failed to establish the jurisdictional facts necessary for an anti-dissipation interdict. There is no objective evidence that the respondent is intentionally dissipating or secreting assets to defeat the applicant's claims. The respondent continues to meet his maintenance obligations for the minor child and has not abdicated his responsibilities. The applicant's apprehension of harm is not supported by the facts, and her conduct in disposing of joint assets for personal benefit undermines her case. The balance of convenience favours the respondent, and the applicant has alternat…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Spousal Maintenance
• Child Maintenance
• Community Of Property Dispute
• Abuse Of Process

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Snyman De Jager Attorneys and Another (2025/087641)

Standard Bank of South Africa Limited v Snyman De Jager Attorneys and Another (2025/087641) [2025] ZAGPJHC 624 (24 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/087641

Judge

Liebenberg

The court found that the applicant, as a sequestrating creditor with a substantial claim against the second respondent, had established a prima facie right to seek preservation of the net proceeds from the sale of the Midstream property. The second respondent's financial distress, refusal to provide assurances, and lack of disclosure regarding her assets gave rise to a legitimate apprehension that the proceeds would be dissipated to the prejudice of creditors. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the applicant demonstrated a prima facie right, irreparable harm if the proc…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Interim Interdict
• Sequestration
• Creditor Rights
• Balance Of Convenience

K.G v D.G and Others (B957/2023)

K.G v D.G and Others (B957/2023) [2025] ZAGPPHC 130 (17 February 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

B957/2023

Judge

Nyathi

The applicant established a prima facie right to the property based on the settlement agreement and the Rule 43 court order, both of which support her claim to the property pending the divorce. The urgency of the application was justified, as the applicant sought compliance before launching proceedings and acted promptly upon learning of the sale agreement. The respondent's financial arguments were found to be unconvincing, given his substantial income and prior findings of contempt. The sale of the property would irreparably harm the applicant by rendering her claim and any future judgment m…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Settlement Agreement Enforcement
• Rule 43 Application
• Prima Facie Right
• Balance Of Convenience

Cellucity (Proprietary) Limited v Phillpson-Garcia and Others (17191/24)

Cellucity (Proprietary) Limited v Phillpson-Garcia and Others (17191/24) [2024] ZAWCHC 346; 2025 (3) SA 170 (WCC) (4 November 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

17191/24

Judge

M W Janisch

The applicant established, on uncontested evidence, that the First Respondent misappropriated R10,184,455.95 by falsifying invoices and diverting funds into an account she controlled. The First Respondent acquired multiple immovable properties with the proceeds, and did not deny the allegations or provide any legitimate explanation for the source of her wealth. The court found a clear connection between the stolen funds and the identified properties, rendering the claim quasi-vindicatory. Accordingly, the applicant was entitled to repayment and anti-dissipation interdicts over the First Respo…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Theft By Employee
• Misappropriation Of Funds
• Interim Interdict
• Quasi Vindicatory Claim

G.J.W v L.W (2023-114308)

G.J.W v L.W (2023-114308) [2024] ZAGPPHC 823 (8 August 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023-114308

Judge

Labuschagne AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to establish a case for confirmation of the interim anti-dissipation order. The respondent's intentions regarding the net proceeds of the Mooikloof property were consistent and focused on the children's education, with the balance available for accrual claims. There was no evidence of an intention to dissipate assets to defeat the applicant's claim. The respondent has sufficient assets to meet any accrual claim, and the applicant's fear of dissipation was unfounded. The interim order was overbroad, as the applicant's accrual claim at the time was limi…

Source excerpt

• Accrual System
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Divorce Proceedings
• Forfeiture Of Accrual
• Maintenance And Education
• Interim Relief

Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Baile Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (3498/2023 ; 3787/2023)

Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Baile Trading (Pty) Ltd and Others (3498/2023 ; 3787/2023) [2024] ZAFSHC 226 (31 July 2024)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3498/2023 ; 3787/2023

Judge

Van Zyl

The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll after finding the municipality delayed too long and failed to show that substantial redress could not be obtained later.

• Urgent Application
• Writ Of Execution
• Garnishee Order
• Rescission Of Judgment
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Urgent-application

ABSA Bank Limited v Moreba Tour and Transfers and Another (43056/2021)

ABSA Bank Limited v Moreba Tour and Transfers and Another (43056/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 834 (30 July 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

43056/2021

Judge

Van der Merwe

The High Court granted ABSA a preservation order over a bus pending trial, finding the respondents lacked authority to oppose and that interim relief was justified.

• Interim Interdict
• Preservation Order
• Instalment Sale Agreement
• Locus Standi
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Interim-interdict

KSL v AL (356/2023)

KSL v AL (356/2023) [2024] ZASCA 96; 2024 (6) SA 410 (SCA) (13 June 2024)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

356/2023

Judges

Zondi, Mokgohloa, Mabindla-Boqwana

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie right to an accrual claim, as she did not substantiate her claim with evidence and did not contest the appellant's calculations. The High Court erred in treating the appellant's settlement tender as an admission of liability. Furthermore, there was no evidence that the appellant intended to dissipate assets to defeat the respondent's claim; the sale of the property was justified by debts and not by mala fide conduct. The High Court incorrectly relied on High Court decisions that relaxed the intention requir…

Source excerpt

• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Accrual System
• Interim Interdict
• Matrimonial Property Act
• Onus Of Proof

Fatmols Lodges Proprietary Limited v Botha and Others (2023/017800)

Fatmols Lodges Proprietary Limited v Botha and Others (2023/017800) [2024] ZAGPJHC 250 (11 March 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/017800

Judge

B.C. Wanless

The High Court dismissed an application for leave to appeal and ordered the applicant to pay costs on the attorney-and-client scale.

• Leave To Appeal
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Interim Interdict
• Costs On Punitive Scale
• Leave-to-appeal
• Anti-dissipation-interdict

Fatmols Lodges Proprietary Ltd v Botha and Others (017800/2023)

Fatmols Lodges Proprietary Ltd v Botha and Others (017800/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 30 (17 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

017800/2023

Judge

B.C. Wanless

High Court application for an interim anti-dissipation interdict was dismissed because the applicant failed to prove a prima facie right and a real risk of asset dissipation.

• Interim Interdict
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Unjust Enrichment
• Alienation Of Land Act
• Prima Facie Right
• Anti-dissipation-interdict