Stratgro Capital (SA) Limited v Lombard NO and Others

Stratgro Capital (SA) Limited entered into a written agreement with the Theo Lombard Family Trust to purchase immovable property, subject to obtaining finance. The agreement lapsed when finance could not be secured. Subsequently, through an oral arrangement, Stratgro introduced a third-party purchaser at a higher price, entitling Stratgro to a profit share of R1.5 million. After partial payment, the Trust refused to pay the outstanding R1 million, alleging the claim amounted to unlawful commission. Stratgro instituted proceedings to recover the amount. In the interim, the Trust obtained an order compelling Stratgro to provide security for costs, and the taxed costs were not timeously paid. The Trust caused a writ of execution to be issued and instructed the sheriff to attach Stratgro’s incorporeal right of action against the Trust and sell it in execution, without giving notice of the attachment to Stratgro. The right of action was sold in execution to the fourth respondent. Stratgro applied to set aside the attachment and sale; the High Court dismissed the application, leading to this appeal.

The appeal was upheld. The attachment and subsequent sale in execution of Stratgro’s claim against the Theo Lombard Family Trust were set aside. The Trust and the fourth respondent were ordered to pay Stratgro’s costs in both the High Court and the appeal, jointly and severally, on the attorney-and-client scale.

The case authoritatively clarifies the interpretation of Uniform Rule of Court 45(8)(c)(i)(a) and confirms that an execution debtor is an ‘interested party’ entitled to written notice when their incorporeal right, including a right of action, is attached. It underscores the strict procedural requirements governing execution against incorporeal property and reinforces judicial intolerance of secretive execution processes that undermine procedural fairness.