Syntec Global Incorporated and Another v Baxotype (Pty) Ltd and Another (3092/2015) [2015] ZAECPEHC 54 (10 September 2015)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Case number
3092/2015
Judge
Roberson
High Court refused to set aside an ex parte attachment order confirming jurisdiction over Syntec’s stock, finding a prima facie claim, proper jurisdiction, and no required joinder.
Adams & Adams Attorneys and Another v Pointer Fashion International CC and Others (324/2013) [2014] ZASCA 11; 2014 BIP 176 (SCA) (19 March 2014)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
324/2013
Judges
Mthiyane DP, Mhlantla JA, Wallis JA, Van Zyl AJA, Mocumie AJA
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an order granting leave to file a further affidavit was interlocutory and not appealable, and struck the appeal off the roll.
Frost NO and Others v Vermaak (3754/2011) [2012] ZAECPEHC 36 (1 June 2012)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Case number
3754/2011
Judge
Chetty
The High Court confirmed attachment ad confirmandam jurisdictionem over immovable property and rejected a res judicata defence based on defective prior magistrates’ court proceedings.
Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the MV Alina II and Another (AC40/10) [2010] ZAWCHC 503; 2011 (6) SA 40 (WCC) (20 October 2010)
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Case number
AC40/10
Judge
Griesel
The court held that the applicant's contemplated action in personam was based on the same facts and causes of action as the pending actions in rem, and that the effective defendant in each was the owner of the vessel. Allowing concurrent proceedings in rem and in personam for the same claim would result in unnecessary multiplicity of actions and constitute an abuse of process. Section 3(8) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act prohibits multiple arrests or attachments for the same maritime claim by the same claimant. Furthermore, the respondent had already submitted to the jurisdiction…
Metlika Trading Ltd and Others v Commissioner for the South African Revenue Service (427/03, 438/03) [2004] ZASCA 97; [2004] 4 All SA 410 (SCA); 2005 (3) SA 1 (SCA); 67 SATC 15 (1 October 2004)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
427/03, 438/03
Judges
Streicher, Cameron, Conradie, Patel, Ponnan
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that an interim interdict and attachment order were appealable and that a court could order in personam compliance to return an aircraft from abroad.
Ewing McDonald & Co. Ltd. v M & M Products Company and Others (199/89) [1990] ZASCA 115; 1991 (1) SA 252 (AD); [1991] 1 All SA 319(A) (28 September 1990)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
199/89
Judges
Van Heerden, Smalberger, Nicholas, Friedman, Nienaber
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the jurisdiction of a division of the Supreme Court is strictly territorial. Section 26(1) of the Supreme Court Act does not confer jurisdiction over persons or property outside the division's area; it merely facilitates the execution of process throughout the Republic. The principle of effectiveness, while central to jurisdiction, does not override the territorial limits imposed by statute and common law. Attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction must be limited to property within the court's territorial area. The appellant's argument that…
