THE LABOUR COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA, JOHANNESBURG
Not r eportable
Case N o: J 4/25
In ex part e application of :
LINDIKHAYA NGQAZA Applicant
In re:
LINDIKHAYA NGQAZA Applicant
and
SEBOTSE CONSTRUCTION CC First Respondent
(Registration: 2004/057508/23)
FIRST NATIONAL BANK LIMITED Second Respondent
ABSA GROUP LIMITED Third Respondent
NEDBANK LIMITED Fourth Respondent
STANDARD BANK GROUP LIMITED Fifth Respondent
Heard: 5 February 2025
2
Delivered: 12 March 2025 (This judgment was handed down electronically by
emailing a copy to the parties. The 12 March 2025 is deemed to be the date of
delivery of this judgment).
Summary : Bank attachment – writ of execution – requirements for
attachment of incorporeal property – court application not necessary –
garnishee procedure .
JUDGMENT
RAMJI , AJ
Introduction
[1] On 5 February 2025, the a pplicant’s representative moved this application
asking the Court to:
1.1. “direct ” the sheriff “to attach all bank accounts held with/by the second
to fifth respondents under the name [of the first respondent]” and to “cause to
be realised the sum of R200,144.26” with interest (the first judgment debt) ;
and
1.2. “direct ” the sheriff “ to attach all bank accounts held with/by the second
to fifth respondents under the name [of the first respondent]” and to “cause to
be realised the sum of R96,393.04” with interest (the second judgment debt) .
[2] The first judgment debt arises from a voluntary severance package that was
made an order of court by Beckenstrater AJ on 4 September 2024. The second judgment debt arises from the taxed bill of costs resulting from the applicant unsuccessfully chasing the first judgment debt. The bill was taxed on 12 November
2024, and as with the previous application, I am not called to review the taxation. I am asked merely to assist with the recovery of the bill as it stands, which includes
appearance fees in unopposed motions of R28,000 per day.
3
[3] I cannot, however, grant the relief.
[4] The relief sought and the basis on which it is sought is like the relief sought in
Mokoma v M -NJR and Owethu Consulting (Pty) Ltd & others (J03- 25). I have
handed down judgment in that matter on 11 March 2025.
[5] I refused the relief sought in that matter on the basis that the applicant
essentially seeks a writ of execution for the attachment of incorporeal property, and a
judge is not competent to “order” a writ of execution. [6] This application is dismissed f or the same reason.
[7] In this case, the applicant was retrenched, and his representative has
previously tried to find and communicate with the first respondent and has been unable to sustain communication after being blocked on WhatsApp. The sheriff has
not in the past found anything at the first respondent’s registered business address and other employees known to the applicant have been retrenched and cannot assist him in locating the first respondent . There is a record to prove this.
[8] In the circumstances, the applicant may decide to ultimately attach the monies
held in the bank account of the first respondent, once these banking details have been determined. The procedure is governed by Uniform Rule 45(12)(a), which also
does not require a prior court application. This is only required in the Magistrate’s Court Rule s which this Court does not follow. The applicant would therefore obtain a
writ, and any non- compliance with the writ by the garnishee may then be brought to
court.
Order
1. The application is dismissed.
B. Ramji
Acting Judge of the Labour Court of South Africa
4
Appearances :
For the A pplicant: S G Seepamore, S G Seepamore Inc