IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE NO: 2025-121790
In the matter between:
ASA (PTY) LTD First Applicant
ASA SA (PTY) LTD Second Applicant
And
SANLAM SPECIALISED ASSET MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD First Respondent
THE SHERIFF OF THE HIGH COURT Second Respondent
FEELER AFRICA (PTY) LTD Third Respondent
FEELER IMPLEMENTS (PTY) LTD Fourth Respondent
DELETE WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED.
(4) Date: 07 April 2025
Signature: _
2
In re: the matter between:
SANLAM SPECIALISED ASSET MANAGEMENT (PTY) LTD Applicant
And
FEELER AFRICA (PTY) LTD First Respondent
FEELER IMPLEMENTS (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
JUDGMENT
NYATHI J
A. Introduction
[1] This is an application brought by ASA (Pty) Ltd and ASA SA (Pty) Ltd (“ASA”) in
terms of Uniform Rule 6(8) seeking the anticipatory reconsideration of a rule nisi
(“the Perfection Order”) granted ex parte in favour of Sanlam Specialised Asset
Management (Pty) Ltd (“Sanlam”) on 29 July 2025. The order authorised Sanlam
to take possession of all movable property of the Feeler companies pursuant to
the perfection of a general notarial bond.
[2] When the Sheriff executed the Perfection Order at 38 Rokewood Street, Pomona
on 14 August 2025, he seized not only property of the Feeler entities but also 14
pieces of heavy machinery and implements belonging to ASA (“the subject
assets”). ASA alleges own ership of these assets and seeks their release from
attachment.
3
[3] Sanlam resists the application on three bases:
(a) ASA lacks standing under Rule 6(8);
(b) the matter is not urgent; and
(c) the dispute regarding ownership cannot be determined on affidavit and must
be referred to oral evidence.
[4] Having considered the papers, the authorities and the arguments advanced , I
conclude that:
(1) The matter is urgent;
(2) ASA validly invoked Rule 6(8);
(3) ASA has established ownership of the subject assets;
(4) Sanlam has placed no real, genuine or bona fide dispute of fact before this
Court; and
(5) The assets must be released, with punitive costs.
Standing under Rule 6(8)
[5] Rule 6(8) permits any person adversely affected by an order granted ex parte
to anticipate the return day on shortened notice. The wording is deliberate: it is
not limited to “respondents” or “parties” but extends broadly to any person whose
rights are affected.
4
[6] The Perfection Order itself amplifies this. Paragraph 2 expressly calls upon “the
respondents and all interested persons” to appear on the return day to show
cause why the rule should not be confirmed. ASA, being the owner of the seized
assets, plainly falls within the category of “interested persons”.
[7] Sanlam’s reliance on paragraph 3.2 of the order, which grants “the respondents”
the right to anticipate the return day on 48 hours’ notice, ignores the interpretive
principle that provisions must be read contextually, not pedantically (Endumeni).1
The only coherent reading is that all persons who may appear on the return day
may also anticipate it.
[8] ASA was not cited in the ex parte Perfection Application; yet the order’s
execution immediately and materially affected its proprietary rights. ASA
therefore falls squarely within the protective purpose of Rule 6(8).
[9] The challenge to ASA’s standing is without merit.
Urgency
[10] The matter is intrinsically urgent. An order was granted ex parte that resulted in
ASA’s property being seized without it being heard. Urgency flows not from
ASA’s commercial interests alone, but from the constitutional imperative of audi
alteram partem2 when rights are curtailed without prior notice.
[11] Even if this were not so, ASA has demonstrated substantive commercial
urgency. The subject assets had been pre -sold under binding purchase orders,
and certain items were required for the imminent NAMPO agricultural exhibition.
1 Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality 2012 (4) SA 593 (SCA)
2 Section 34 of the Constitution guarantees the right to a fair public hearing before a court or independent tribunal.
5
ASA faced concrete and irreversible commercial prejudice if the equipment were
not immediately released.
[12] Sanlam offers no alternative mechanism to address this prejudice and relies
instead on technical challenges to timeliness. These arguments fail. ASA acted
promptly: it asserted ownership at the time of execution, issued a demand on 18
August, furnished full documentation on 21 August, and launched this Rule 6(8)
application on 22 August.
[13] The matter is accordingly properly enrolled and urgent.
Ownership and the alleged dispute of fact
[14] ASA provides documentary proof that it:
a. purchased the machinery directly from a Chinese manufacturer;
b. paid for and imported the goods;
c. holds the bills of lading;
d. cleared the goods through customs; and
e. delivered them to the Pomona premises for assembly.
[15] Sanlam offers no competing facts. It does not allege that the Feeler companies
purchased the goods, nor has Feeler itself come forward to dispute ASA’s
ownership.
6
[16] Instead, Sanlam argues that the mere presence of Feeler-branded equipment at
Feeler’s premises suggests a suspicious “arrangement” needing oral evidence.
This speculation is insufficient. As Wevell Trust3 and Room Hire4 teach, a referral
to oral evidence requires:
i. identification of the specific evidence sought;
ii. reasons why such evidence cannot be presented on affidavit; and
iii. reasonable grounds to believe such evidence will establish a defence.
[17] Sanlam satisfies none of these requirements. It does not identify even a single
factual issue which, if tested or clarified, could undermine ASA’s ownership. Its
suggestion of “suspicion” is atmospheric, not evidentiary.
[18] The dispute of fact is therefore not real, genuine or bona fide, and the Court may
proceed to determine ownership on affidavit.
[19] ASA has discharged its evidentiary burden. Sanlam, who bore the ultimate onus
of justifying the lawfulness of its attachment, has failed to show any link between
the subject assets and the Feeler companies.
[20] Ownership of the subject assets vests in ASA.
3 Minister of Land Affairs and Agriculture v D & F Wevell Trust 2008 (2) SA 184 at 205B – C
4 Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T).
7
Sanlam’s conduct and punitive costs
[21] Sanlam persisted in withholding property that did not belong to the Feeler
companies, after having been shown documentary proof of ownership on 14 and
21 August 2025.
[22] This refusal was not merely negligent; it constituted an illegitimate use of state
power (via attachment) to achieve an ulterior financial advantage in
circumstances where Sanlam had no claim to the goods.
[23] Such conduct warrants the Court’s censure. A punitive costs order is appropriate
to mark the Court’s disapproval and to indemnify ASA for being compelled to
litigate urgently to protect its property.
Conclusion
[24] ASA has established:
i. standing under Rule 6(8);
ii. urgency;
iii. clear ownership of the subject assets; and
iv. that Sanlam’s continued attachment of its property is unlawful.
[25] Sanlam has failed to present a genuine dispute of fact or grounds for referral to
oral evidence, and its opposition to the application was unreasonable.
8
Order
[26] In the premises, the following order is made:
1. The application is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule 6(12).
2. ASA’s invocation of Rule 6(8) is upheld.
3. The subject assets identified in ASA’s Rule 6(8) notice are declared to be the
property of ASA (Pty) Ltd and ASA SA (Pty) Ltd.
4. The attachment of the subject assets pursuant to the Perfection Order is set
aside.
5. The Sheriff and/or Sanlam shall forthwith release the subject assets to ASA.
6. The First Respondent, Sanlam, shall pay the costs of the application on the
attorney-and-client scale, including the costs of counsel.
___
J.S. NYATHI
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
Date of hearing: 03 September 2025
Date of Judgment: 07 April 2026
Appearances: On behalf of the Applicant: Adv. D.J. Vetten
On behalf of the 1st Respondent: Adv. C.J. Quinn
9
Delivery: This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to the parties' legal
representatives by email and uploaded on the CaseLines electronic platform. The date for hand-
down is deemed to be 07 April 2026.