The appellant instituted an action in the Witwatersrand Local Division for payment of money and ancillary relief. The respondent raised a special plea that the court lacked jurisdiction because he was not ‘residing’ within the court’s area when summons was served on 18 April 1995, as required by s 19(1)(a) of the Supreme Court Act 59 of 1959. The respondent was an itinerant international businessman who spent increasing amounts of time in South Africa from 1993 onwards, particularly in Johannesburg, where he established an office, leased a vehicle, and conducted long‑term business projects. He also entered into a romantic relationship with a Johannesburg resident and moved in with her around the relevant period. Despite this, he claimed that his residence remained in the United Kingdom. The trial court and a majority of the Full Court upheld the special plea, finding that his presence in Johannesburg amounted only to temporary visits. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.
The appeal succeeded with costs. The order of the Full Court was set aside, and the special plea of non‑jurisdiction was dismissed with costs, confirming that the Witwatersrand Local Division had jurisdiction to hear the action.
The case is a leading authority on the interpretation of ‘residing in’ for purposes of jurisdiction under South African civil procedure. It clarifies that residence is a factual, objective enquiry focusing on stability and ordinary habitation, and that modern itinerant lifestyles do not allow litigants to evade jurisdiction by relying on subjective intentions or formal ties elsewhere.