South Africa Case Law

Swanepoel v Depuy International Limited (20758/2013)

Swanepoel v Depuy International Limited (20758/2013) [2025] ZAWCHC 9 (21 January 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20758/2013

Judge

Wille

The court found that the defendant, through its conduct in implementing the recall of the defective hip replacement system in South Africa, appointing local agents and attorneys, and accepting service of summons locally, submitted to the jurisdiction of the Western Cape High Court. The action has a real and substantial connection to the forum, as the alleged delict occurred within its territorial jurisdiction and the harm manifested locally. The court held that the attachment of property to found or confirm jurisdiction is no longer an absolute requirement where the summons was served locally…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Over Foreign Defendant
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Product Liability
• Attachment Of Property
• Development Of Common Law

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others (CCT 132/22)

Bliss Brands (Pty) Ltd v Advertising Regulatory Board NPC and Others (CCT 132/22) [2023] ZACC 19; 2023 (10) BCLR 1153 (CC) (26 June 2023)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 132/22

Judges

Zondo CJ, Kollapen J, Madlanga J, Majiedt J, Makgoka AJ, Mathopo J, Potterill AJ, Rogers J, Theron J

The Constitutional Court refused leave to appeal, holding that Bliss Brands had submitted to the Advertising Regulatory Board’s jurisdiction by participating without objection.

• Jurisdiction Of Non Statutory Bodies
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Freedom Of Expression
• Freedom Of Association
• Self Regulation In Advertising
• Procedural Fairness

Vesta in re: Vesta v McDonald and Another (3452/2012), Ex parte

Vesta in re: Vesta v McDonald and Another (3452/2012), Ex parte [2012] ZAFSHC 167 (10 September 2012)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3452/2012

Judge

J.P. Daffue

The court discharged an ex parte rule nisi and ordered punitive costs after finding the applicant withheld material facts about consent to jurisdiction.

• Founding Jurisdiction
• Anti Dissipation Interdict
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Costs Order
• Breach Of Contract
• Ex-parte-applications

Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the Alina II (898/10)

Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the Alina II (898/10) [2011] ZASCA 129; 2011 (6) SA 206 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 350 (SCA) (15 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

898/10

Judges

Brand, Ponnan, Malan, Theron, Wallis

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the vessel owner had already submitted to jurisdiction by defending the in rem action, so attachment was unnecessary.

• Attachment Ad Fundandam Et Confirmandam Jurisdictionem
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Action In Rem
• Action In Personam
• Abuse Of Process
• Admiralty-law

Transnet Ltd v The Owner of the MV Alina II and Another (AC40/10)

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…

Source excerpt

• Attachment Ad Confirmandam Jurisdictionem
• Action In Rem
• Action In Personam
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Abuse Of Process

Leibowitz t/a Lee Finance v Mhlana and Others (422/2004)

Leibowitz t/a Lee Finance v Mhlana and Others (422/2004) [2005] ZASCA 126; [2006] 4 All SA 428 (SCA); 2006 (6) SA 180 (SCA) (1 December 2005)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

422/2004

Judges

MPATI, STREICHER, LEWIS, VAN HEERDEN, JAFTA

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Transkei High Court did not have jurisdiction over the appellant or the insurance companies. All relevant actions, contracts, and possession of policies occurred in Durban or Cape Town, and payment was stipulated to be made in Durban. The respondents failed to prove that the appellant or the insurance companies submitted to the jurisdiction of the Transkei High Court. The principal place of business for jurisdictional purposes is where the central control and management of a company is situated, not merely a branch office within the court's jurisdicti…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Principal Place Of Business
• Onus Of Proving Submission

National Arts Council and Another v Minister of Arts and Culture and Another (10838/04 , 807/05)

National Arts Council and Another v Minister of Arts and Culture and Another (10838/04 , 807/05) [2005] ZAWCHC 49; 2006 (1) SA 215 (C) [2006] 3 All SA 395 (C) (15 July 2005)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

10838/04 , 807/05

Judge

N J Yekiso

The court dismissed a review application after finding the challenged decision was made in Pretoria, outside its jurisdiction, and no submission to jurisdiction was proved.

• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Promotion Of Administrative Justice Act
• Judicial Review
• Jurisdiction
• Submission-to-jurisdiction

Hay Management Consultants Ltd v P3 Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd (439/2003)

Hay Management Consultants Ltd v P3 Management Consultants (Pty) Ltd (439/2003) [2004] ZASCA 116; [2005] 3 All SA 119 (SCA); 2005 (2) SA 522 (SCA) (30 November 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

439/03

Judges

Scott, Cameron, Conradie, Heher, Patel

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that submission by a peregrinus defendant to the jurisdiction of a South African court is sufficient to confer jurisdiction in an action for money by an incola plaintiff, without the need for attachment of property. The court found that the cumulative effect of the contractual domicilium and choice of law clauses, together with the business relationship and the selection of a South African address for service of process, established on a balance of probabilities that the defendant intended to submit to the jurisdiction of the Witwatersrand Local Division. The…

Source excerpt

• Jurisdiction Over Peregrinus
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Domicilium Clause
• Choice Of Law
• Attachment Of Property

Maschinen Frommer GMBH & co kg v Trisave Engineering & Machinery Supplies (PTY) limited (415/02)

Maschinen Frommer GMBH & co kg v Trisave Engineering & Machinery Supplies (PTY) limited (415/02) [2002] ZAWCHC 55; [2003] 1 All SA 453 (C); 2003 (6) SA 69 (C) (10 October 2002)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

415/02

Judge

Van Reenen

The court refused provisional sentence on a German judgment because the plaintiff failed to prove the German court had jurisdiction, though authentication was not fatal.

• Enforcement Of Foreign Judgments
• Submission To Jurisdiction
• Contractual Terms Inclusion
• Proper Law Of Contract
• Enforcement-of-foreign-judgments
• Submission-to-jurisdiction

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