In University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic v Minister of Justice and Correctional
Services (South African Human Rights Commission as amicus curiae)
[2015] JOL 33485 (WCC) (hereafter Stellenbosch LAC) the issuing of emoluments
attachment orders in the debt collection procedure came under fire
and certain provisions of the Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944 were declared
constitutionally invalid to the extent that they allowed for emoluments attachment
orders to be issued without proper judicial oversight (see para 2 below for a discussion of the case). In the media coverage of this case (Barry “Triumph for
the working man” 8 July 2015 Moneyweb http://bit.ly/1QAPv0w (accessed on 10
July 2015); Barry “Reckless lending scourge in highlighted in EAO judgement”
9 July 2015 Moneyweb http://bit.ly/1mf1Zjr (accessed on 10 July 2015)), it was
stated that Desai J’s ruling in this case could have important and wide-ranging
implications for other emoluments attachment orders issued under similar circumstances.
In a subsequent case brought in the Western Cape High Court by
Tuffy Manufacturing and four other companies against six different debt collectors,
the court, in pursuance of a settlement between the parties concerned, exempted
all Western Cape employers from enforcing emoluments attachment orders
which were obtained outside the province against their employees until such
time as the Constitutional Court has confirmed the declaration of invalidity in
Stellenbosch LAC (see Smith “Garnishee order relief for W Cape workers” 16
October 2015 Fin24 http://bit.ly/1Q7BjxP (accessed on 17 October 2015)).