Absa Bank Limited and Mosuli Construction CC entered into an instalment sale agreement on 12 January 2012 for a 2012 Isuzu motor vehicle valued at R441,148.80, payable in monthly instalments of R7,352.48 over five years ending 10 February 2017. Ownership was to remain with the applicant until full payment. The agreement also required the respondent to keep the vehicle licensed and comprehensively insured. The respondent defaulted on its payment obligations. By the time summons was issued on 18 January 2015, arrears amounted to R158,483.81, which escalated to R341,100.45 by the date of the application. A default judgment entered on 17 June 2015 was rescinded on 18 August 2015. The respondent failed to provide proof of comprehensive insurance cover and declared under oath that the vehicle was uninsured. The agreement was cancelled due to the respondent's breach, or alternatively terminated by effluxion of time on 10 February 2017. The applicant sought interim attachment of the vehicle pending the outcome of the main vindicatory action and damages claim, as the vehicle was depreciating and at risk.
1. The late delivery of the respondent's opposing affidavit was condoned, with the respondent paying its own costs in the condonation application. 2. The respondent was ordered to return the vehicle to the applicant on an interim basis pending the outcome of the main action. 3. Alternatively, the respondent was ordered to deliver the vehicle to the sheriff for delivery to the applicant. 4. The applicant was to transport the vehicle to its premises, retain it under security, and not use it. 5. If the respondent failed to comply within 5 days, the sheriff was authorised to take possession of the vehicle and return it to the applicant. 6. Costs of the application were reserved as costs in the main action.
In applications for interim attachment of property in vindicatory or quasi-vindicatory actions, where an applicant establishes a clear right to the property (such as ownership under an instalment sale agreement where the purchaser has defaulted), the apprehension of irreparable harm is presumed and need not be separately established unless rebutted by evidence from the respondent. Once an instalment sale agreement is cancelled due to breach or terminates by effluxion of time, the owner is not precluded from claiming recovery of the goods. The balance of convenience favours an applicant owner where: (1) the property is a depreciating asset; (2) the respondent possessor is in default of payment obligations; (3) there is no proof of insurance or maintenance; and (4) continued possession by the defaulting party risks rendering the property worthless by the time of final judgment. Where a clear right is established, the applicant need not prove irreparable harm or absence of other satisfactory remedies.
The court commented that heads of argument are merely persuasive comment by parties on questions of fact or law and offer no substitute for affidavits; factual allegations in heads of argument do not constitute evidence under oath. The court also noted that the issue of lis pendens raised in the Rule 6(5)(d)(iii) notice was not addressed in argument and the court was not invited to deal with it, rendering it moot. The court observed that the requisite that there be no other remedy is closely linked with irreparable harm in interlocutory interdicts, and where a clear right is established, neither irreparable harm nor absence of other remedies need be shown. The court noted that the stronger the applicant's case, the less need for the balance of convenience to favour the applicant.
This case provides guidance on the application for interim attachment of property subject to instalment sale agreements where the agreement has been cancelled or terminated. It clarifies the requirements for vindicatory and quasi-vindicatory relief, particularly that: (1) establishing a clear right removes the need to separately prove irreparable harm, which is then presumed; (2) delay in launching an application will not necessarily defeat relief where the respondent fails to take mitigating measures; (3) the balance of convenience strongly favours an owner seeking return of depreciating assets where the possessor is in default, has no insurance, and uses the property without payment; and (4) cancellation of an agreement does not preclude recovery of goods. The judgment reinforces the protection of ownership rights in commercial credit transactions and the circumstances warranting interim relief to preserve assets pending final determination.