J.M v N.C (2023/00100) [2024] ZAGPJHC 762 (16 August 2024)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
2023/00100
Judge
N.J. Graves
The court found that the respondent failed to provide credible evidence of domicile or residence in South Africa. Her assertions were unsupported, contradicted by her own communications, and lacked necessary detail regarding her employment, marital status, and family circumstances. The redacted visa did not substantiate her claim of temporary residence in the USA, and her failure to disclose relevant facts undermined her credibility. The applicant discharged the burden of proving that the respondent is not an incola of South Africa, and thus a peregrinus. The reconsideration application was d…
Meyer and Another v Van Der Riet (1656/2021) [2021] ZAFSHC 218 (13 September 2021)
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Case number
1656/2021
Judge
C Reinders
The High Court issued a rule nisi and interim attachment to secure a debt under a notarial bond, but refused to authorize sale of the assets while no amount was due under the AOD.
Amathole District Municipality v Kepe Lodge CC (459/2019) [2020] ZAECGHC 59 (9 June 2020)
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Case number
459/2019
Judge
Beshe
The High Court dismissed a municipality’s bid to recover movable assets from its lessor, finding disputable facts and a magistrates’ court attachment order.
Sheriff, Johannesburg East v Vally; In re: Formeset Printers (Pty) Ltd v Vally (24163/2007) [2016] ZAGPJHC 63 (24 March 2016)
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Case number
24163/2007
Judge
Modiba
The court dismissed an interpleader claim and held that a close corporation member’s interest remained attachable because ownership changed only on CIPC registration.
South African Reserve Bank v Khumalo and Another (235/09) [2010] ZASCA 53; 2010 (5) SA 449 (SCA) ; [2011] 1 All SA 26 (SCA) (31 March 2010)
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Case number
235/09
Judges
Harms, Nugent, Leach, Hurt, Majiedt
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the omission of a time limit in Regulation 22C(1) does not render the regulation invalid. The empowering statute, section 9(2)(g) of the Currency and Exchanges Act, sets a statutory maximum period for attachment, which applies regardless of whether the regulation or the notice expressly states it. The regulations must be interpreted in light of the statute, and the attachment cannot endure beyond the statutory limit. The court found that the President was not required to reiterate the time limit in the regulations, and the absence of such a provision does…
Georgia Avenue Investments 11 (Pty) Ltd v Koperfontein Meule (Pty) Ltd and Others (55263/2008) [2009] ZAGPPHC 273 (5 August 2009)
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Case number
55263/2008
Judge
P.Z. Ebersohn
The court stayed execution of a default judgment and ordered release of attached assets pending a rescission application, finding good prospects of success and likely injustice.