Rootman entered into a contract with the Government of the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC) in 1998 through a company called Moneyline to investigate theft and illegal importation of cobalt from the DRC. Despite tracing stolen cobalt worth millions of dollars, the DRC refused to pay. Rootman acquired Moneyline's claims and sued in the Pretoria High Court. On 2 September 2003, the Pretoria High Court granted a default judgment against the DRC for over $15,000,000. The DRC refused to comply with the judgment. Rootman attempted execution but was limited by the Foreign States Immunities Act 87 of 1981, which protects foreign state property from execution except property used for commercial purposes. Rootman had attached and sold an aircraft (the only commercial property of the DRC in South Africa) but otherwise could not execute the judgment. Rootman then sought a declaratory order that the South African government had a constitutional duty to assist him in securing compliance with the court order.
The appeal was dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the use of two counsel.
The South African Constitution, including the Bill of Rights, does not have extra-territorial effect and does not bind foreign states beyond South Africa's borders. The State has no constitutional duty to intercede on behalf of a judgment creditor to ensure compliance by a foreign state with a South African court order. Section 165(4) and (5) of the Constitution, which require organs of state to assist and protect courts and provide that court orders bind all persons, does not create a duty on the State to take active diplomatic or other measures to enforce judgments against foreign states that are not bound by the Constitution. The right of access to courts under section 34 does not entail a duty on the State to ensure the effectiveness of court orders against foreign states beyond providing the legislative framework, court structures, and enforcement mechanisms already in place. Courts should not make orders where it is known they cannot be enforced; relief must be effective.
The court observed that at most, the State can engage in diplomatic negotiation with foreign states through diplomatic channels but cannot be ordered to do so. Courts are ill-equipped to deal with matters of foreign policy, including the timing of representations, the language to be used, and potential sanctions - these are matters better left to diplomats and the executive. The court noted that Rootman conceded the order sought could be satisfied by a mere letter or phone call, which illustrated the ineffectiveness of the relief. On costs, the court noted that while litigants seeking to vindicate constitutional rights who are unsuccessful should not ordinarily be visited with costs orders, Rootman was in fact attempting to enforce a commercial contract rather than vindicate a constitutional right, so costs should follow the result.
This case is significant in South African law as it clarifies the territorial limitations of the Constitution and the State's duties in relation to enforcement of judgments against foreign states. It establishes that the State has no constitutional duty to intercede on behalf of private commercial creditors to ensure foreign states comply with South African court orders. The case affirms the principle from Kaunda that the Constitution is territorially bound and does not apply beyond South Africa's borders. It also demonstrates the limits of judicial intervention in matters of foreign policy and diplomatic relations, recognizing that such matters are properly within the executive domain. The judgment reinforces that access to courts under section 34 does not guarantee successful execution of judgments, particularly against foreign states protected by sovereign immunity.