South Africa Case Law

Sheriff (Pretoria North East) v Vishnu Munilall and Associates and Others (11239/2006)

Sheriff (Pretoria North East) v Vishnu Munilall and Associates and Others (11239/2006) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1 (13 January 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

11239/2006

Judge

TV Ratshibvumo

The court held that the order sought by the First Claimant had already been adjudicated in previous judgments, notably by Bezuidenhout J, who found that neither National Treasury nor the Office of the State Attorney could be held liable for costs awarded in litigation to which they were not parties. The First Claimant's interpretation of section 12(1) of the State Tender Board Act was rejected, as the Act does not render the Director-General: Finance liable for the Board's debts. The court found that the State Tender Board is a separate entity from National Treasury and that payment of judgme…

Source excerpt

• Interpleader Proceedings
• Attachment And Execution
• Judgment Debt Liability
• State Tender Board Liability

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Springkaan and Others (4353/2023)

National Director of Public Prosecutions v Springkaan and Others (4353/2023) [2023] ZAFSHC 431 (2 November 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4353/2023

Judge

Loubser

The court held that it is bound by the decision of the Supreme Court of Appeal in Sentinel Retirement Fund v Masoanganye, which determined that a member's pension benefit cannot be the subject of a restraint order under section 26 of POCA. The reasoning is that such an order constitutes attachment and execution prohibited by section 37A of the Pension Funds Act, and that pension benefits remain the property of the fund until transferred to the member. The applicant's arguments regarding section 37D and the temporary nature of the restraint were rejected, as the legal principles established by…

Source excerpt

• Restraint Order
• Pension Fund Benefits
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Pension Funds Act
• Attachment And Execution

Van Niekerk v The MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018)

Van Niekerk v The MV "Madiba 1" (AC13/2018) [2022] ZAWCHC 125 (17 June 2022)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

AC13/2018

Judge

Binns-Ward

The court held that section 1(3) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act was enacted to allow vessels chartered by demise to be arrested in actions in rem for maritime claims against the charterer, but does not transfer ownership or proprietary rights to the charterer. The arrest of the vessel attaches the property of the real owner, not the charterer, and does not constitute an attachment or execution against the charterer's assets under section 359(1)(b) of the Companies Act. The charterer's rights under the charterparty are personal and not attached by the arrest. The proposed special…

Source excerpt

• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Demise Charter
• Action In Rem
• Companies Act Liquidation
• Attachment And Execution
• Statutory Interpretation

Maluti-a-Phofung Municipality v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (2719/2020)

Maluti-a-Phofung Municipality v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (2719/2020) [2020] ZAFSHC 213 (9 October 2020)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

2719/2020

Judge

Mhlambi

The court found that the applicant met the requirements for a final interdict. The attachment of municipal funds by Eskom, while the intergovernmental consultative process was ongoing, was premature and undermined the constitutional mandate of cooperative governance. The settlement agreement of 30 April 2019 was not invalid or unenforceable due to non-fulfilment of the alleged condition precedent; paragraph 4 of the agreement did not constitute a true suspensive or resolutive condition but was a term, breach of which attracts ordinary contractual remedies. The funds attached were primarily fo…

Source excerpt

• Intergovernmental Relations Framework Act
• Attachment And Execution
• Municipal Finance Management Act
• Constitutional Mandate Of Service Delivery
• Interim Interdict
• Settlement Agreement Enforceability

Sentinel Retirement Fund and Another v Masoanganye (1003/2017)

Sentinel Retirement Fund and Another v Masoanganye (1003/2017) [2018] ZASCA 126 (27 September 2018)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

1003/2017

Judges

Lewis, Cachalia, Saldulker, Mbha, Makgoka

The SCA held that a pension benefit can be paid to a curator bonis under a POCA restraint order and is not blocked by section 37A while still in the fund.

• Pension Fund Protection
• Restraint Order
• Curator Bonis
• Prevention Of Organised Crime Act
• Attachment And Execution
• Pension-fund-protection

Provincial Government North West and Another v Tsoga Developers CC and Others (CCT 91/15)

Provincial Government North West and Another v Tsoga Developers CC and Others (CCT 91/15) [2016] ZACC 9; 2016 (5) BCLR 687 (CC) (24 March 2016)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 91/15

Judges

Mogoeng, Moseneke, Cameron, Jafta, Khampepe, Madlanga, Matojane, Nkabinde, Van der Westhuizen, Wallis, Zondo

The Constitutional Court held that it was not in the interests of justice to grant leave to appeal against the High Court's refusal of interim relief. The applicants failed to provide sufficient evidence of irreparable harm, offering only generic and unsubstantiated claims regarding service delivery and capital projects. The funds in question were held in trust by attorneys, with safeguards in place, and the applicants did not demonstrate a real risk of loss. While there were reasonable prospects of success regarding the argument that the writ may have been issued in contravention of the Stat…

Source excerpt

• State Liability Act
• Interim Relief
• Principle Of Legality
• Attachment And Execution
• Public Finance Management Act
• Service Delivery

Wycliffe Thipe Mothuloe t/a Mothuloe Attorneys v Kgafela II and Others (53972/2012)

Wycliffe Thipe Mothuloe t/a Mothuloe Attorneys v Kgafela II and Others (53972/2012) [2014] ZAGPPHC 928 (17 October 2014)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53972/2012

Judge

NP Mngqibisa-Thusi

The High Court set aside the attachment and restraint of an attorney trust account and awarded attorney-and-client costs against the respondents.

• Attorneys Trust Accounts
• Attachment And Execution
• Punitive Costs
• Rule 42 Rescission
• Attorneys Act Section 78
• Rule 45 Execution

Sherrif Bloemfontein-East v Gainsford and Others (1009/2009)

Sherrif Bloemfontein-East v Gainsford and Others (1009/2009) [2013] ZAFSHC 122 (4 July 2013)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

1009/2009

Judge

L.J. Lekale

The court found that a usufruct, as a personal servitude, is inalienable and inseparably attached to the usufructuary. It cannot be executed against or sold in execution except with the collaboration of the bare dominium owner or in specific circumstances provided by statute. The joint claimants failed to disclose a valid cause of action for execution against the usufruct itself, as the law only allows execution against the use and enjoyment of the benefits, not the right of usufruct. The Trust's claim, relating to the alienable use and enjoyment of the benefits, is legally recognisable and e…

Source excerpt

• Interpleader Proceedings
• Usufruct Personal Servitude
• Attachment And Execution
• Deeds Registries Act
• Alienability Of Real Rights

Sheriff for Krugersdorp v United Aviation Services and Another (1099/2007)

Sheriff for Krugersdorp v United Aviation Services and Another (1099/2007) [2009] ZAGPHC 34 (20 February 2009)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

1099/2007

Judge

Mokgoatlheng

The court set aside execution attachment of an aircraft, finding the second claimant had paid the price, taken delivery, and owned it despite registration remaining in the defendant’s name.

• Ownership Of Movable Property
• Interpleader Proceedings
• Aviation Act Interpretation
• Attachment And Execution
• Contract Perfecta
• Interpleader-proceedings

Klopper NO and Others v Anthillsap (Pty) Ltd (13375/06)

Klopper NO and Others v Anthillsap (Pty) Ltd (13375/06) [2006] ZAGPHC 71 (1 August 2006)

Court

High Courts - Gauteng

Case number

13375/06

Judge

Ismail

The court found that although the funds were attached by the Sheriff prior to the winding-up, the payment to the respondent occurred after the effective date of winding-up. In terms of section 359(1)(a) of the Companies Act, any attachment or execution put in force after the commencement of winding-up is void. The court distinguished between attachment and payment, holding that the respondent was not entitled to retain the funds paid over after the winding-up order. The applicants, as liquidators, were therefore entitled to reclaim the amounts from the respondent.

Source excerpt

• Winding Up Of Company
• Attachment And Execution
• Liquidator Powers
• Companies Act Interpretation