South Africa Case Law

Simon NO v Air Operations of Europe AB and Others (354/96)

Simon NO v Air Operations of Europe AB and Others (354/96) [1998] ZASCA 79; 1999 (1) SA 217 (SCA); [1998] 4 All SA 573 (A) (25 September 1998)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

354/96

Judges

Smalberger, Howie, Plewman, Streicher, Ngoepe

The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed a liquidator’s appeal seeking attachment and an interdict over aircraft lease payments held for a foreign financier.

• Attachment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem
• Assignment Of Contractual Rights
• Interim Interdict
• Effectiveness Principle
• Costs Orders Against Peregrini
• Attachment-to-found-jurisdiction

Ewing McDonald & Co. Ltd. v M & M Products Company and Others (199/89)

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…

Source excerpt

• Attachment Ad Fundandam Jurisdictionem
• Attachment Ad Confirmandam Jurisdictionem
• Territorial Jurisdiction
• Effectiveness Principle
• Supreme Court Act Section 26

Hugo v Wessels (432/85)

Hugo v Wessels (432/85) [1987] ZASCA 45; [1987] 2 All SA 290 (A) (18 May 1987)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

432/85

Judges

Hoexter, Botha, Grosskopf, Smalberger, Kumleben

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Orange Free State Provincial Division had concurrent jurisdiction to hear the matter and grant the relief sought, despite the property being situated in Transvaal. The basis for jurisdiction was the settlement agreement concluded and made an order of court in the Orange Free State Provincial Division. The relief sought was against the appellant personally, compelling her to sign documents necessary for transfer, and in case of non-compliance, authorizing the registrar to act. The court found that its order could be effectively enforced within its juri…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Courts
• Specific Performance
• Transfer Of Immovable Property
• Effectiveness Principle