Travelex Limited v Maloney

Travelex Limited, a foreign peregrinus, purchased shares in FX Africa Foreign Exchange (Pty) Ltd from the respondents in terms of a share sale agreement concluded in December 2010. The respondents, although resident in South Africa, were peregrini of the Gauteng Division and incolae of the Western Cape Division. Following an alleged repudiation of the agreement, the respondents obtained an unopposed order in the Gauteng Division attaching Travelex’s shares in FX Africa ad fundandam et confirmandam jurisdictionem. Travelex later applied for rescission of the attachment order, contending that the Gauteng Division lacked jurisdiction because there was no ratio jurisdictionis and because Travelex had submitted to jurisdiction under the agreement. The High Court dismissed the rescission application, and Travelex appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies South African law on jurisdiction in matters involving peregrini, particularly the requirements for attachment ad fundandam et confirmandam jurisdictionem. It affirms that an order granted without jurisdiction is a nullity, explains when rescission procedures are necessary, and provides authoritative guidance on determining ratio jurisdictionis and submission to jurisdiction in contractual disputes.