South Africa Case Law

ACL Group (Edms) Bpk and Others v Qick Televentures FZE (2013 (1) SA 508 (FB))

ACL Group (Edms) Bpk and Others v Qick Televentures FZE (2013 (1) SA 508 (FB)) [2012] ZAFSHC 249; [2012] ZAFSHC 145 (12 July 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

82/2012

Judge

Snellenburg

The court held that a foreign company registered as an external company and conducting business in South Africa is not resident for purposes of section 28(1) of the Supreme Court Act. The mere fact of registration and business activity does not confer residence. The applicants satisfied all requirements for attachment to confirm jurisdiction: they established a prima facie cause of action for payment under various agreements, the respondent is a peregrinus, the property sought to be attached is beneficially owned by the respondent and situated within the Republic, and a material element of th…

Source excerpt

• Attachment To Found Jurisdiction
• Attachment To Confirm Jurisdiction
• External Company Residence
• Supreme Court Act Section 28
• Companies Act Section 23

Jamieson v Sabingo (329/2000)

Jamieson v Sabingo (329/2000) [2002] ZASCA 20; [2002] 3 All SA 392 (A); 2002 (4) SA 49 (SCA) (27 March 2002)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

329/2000

Judges

Nienaber, Farlam, Navsa, Mthiyane, Lewis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the purpose of attachment to confirm jurisdiction is to ensure the court can give an effective judgment. Where a defendant voluntarily submits to the court's jurisdiction, whether unilaterally or bilaterally, the judgment will be internationally enforceable and binds the whole property of the judgment debtor. Therefore, the necessity for attachment falls away upon voluntary submission, regardless of whether the submission is unilateral or bilateral. The timing of the submission is also critical; if submission occurs before the attachment is executed, atta…

Source excerpt

• Attachment To Confirm Jurisdiction
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Actor Sequitur Forum Rei
• Effectiveness Of Judgment

Hulse-Reutter and Others v Godde (34/2000)

Hulse-Reutter and Others v Godde (34/2000) [2001] ZASCA 102; [2002] 2 All SA 211 (A); 2001 (4) SA 1336 (SCA) (25 September 2001)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

34/2000

Judges

Hefer, Harms, Scott, Mthiyane, Froneman

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the respondent failed to establish a prima facie case against the appellants. The respondent's allegations of fraud and improper conduct were unsupported by factual evidence and amounted to mere assertions. The facts did not justify piercing the corporate veil, as there was no misuse or abuse of the corporate structure resulting in unfair advantage to the appellants. The respondent contracted with Goldleaf, a foreign corporation, and had a direct remedy against it. There was no evidence that Goldleaf would be unable to pay if sued, nor that the respondent…

Source excerpt

• Attachment To Confirm Jurisdiction
• Piercing Corporate Veil
• Prima Facie Case
• Ratio Jurisdictionis
• Company Law
• Contractual Liability

Owner of the MT Tigr and Another v Transnet Ltd. t/a Portnet (214/97)

Owner of the MT Tigr and Another v Transnet Ltd. t/a Portnet (214/97) [1998] ZASCA 40; [1998] 3 All SA 453 (A) (27 May 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

214/97

Judges

Hefer, Nienaber, Marais, Schutz, Scott

The court upheld attachment to confirm jurisdiction for joinder of peregrini in an admiralty claim and dismissed arguments based on liability proof, value, and an English injunction.

• Attachment To Confirm Jurisdiction
• Joinder Of Peregrinus
• Admiralty Jurisdiction Regulation Act
• Apportionment Of Damages Act
• Prima Facie Cause Of Action
• Admiralty-law