One of the landmark cases in the Republic of South Africa relating to a process called a Mureva Injunction is the well know case of Knox D`Arcy & Others v Jamiesen & Others 1996 (4) SA 348 (A) whereat the Supreme Court in South Africa dealt extensively with an anti-dissipation order (also called in English Law as the mureva injuction. The Supreme Court in that case reaffirmed the existence, in South African Law, of a distinctive interdict which provided a remedy where an applicant has shown on the established basis for an interim interdict: (a) a claim against a respondent; and (b) that the respondent is concealing or dissipating assets with the intent of frustrating the claim. The Court, in the Knox judgment stated that “if the petitioners had shown a fairly strong case for the payment of damages and for the proposition that the respondents were secreting their assets with the intention of thwarting the damages claim, the balance of convenience might have played a role’.
In 2020, appearing for the Applicants, our Mr. Mxolisi Dlamini (Senior Partner) at Dynasty Inc. Attorneys was appearing for arguments in the case of Xolile Fakudze & 16 Others v Sukke Ontime Investments & 2 Others wherein a mureva injunction was also icorporated as the applicable law in Eswatini. Her Ladyship Justice M. Dlamini stated as follows: “On the other hand, a Mureva order is one obtained at the instance of a creditor in order to preserve the debtor’s property for purposes of execution of its future patrimony judgement against the judgement debt. The view that orders or judgements of courts must be given effect or not rendered nugatory is reinforced partly by the Mureva interdict”.
This decision has been once again followed in the case of PJM 125 Investments (Pty) Limited v Mwelase Mining Eswatini (Pty) Limited & 2 Others (2234/2023) SZHC 372 (judgment issued 20 November, 2023) where once again, our Senior Partner argued successfully on a mureva injunction. In this case, on 5 October, 2023 and urgent application was lodged on behalf of the Applicant in which the Applicant sought an nati-dissipation order against the Mwelase Mining. The averment was that there is an agreement in place between the Applicant and Mwelase and the Mwelase, through its conduct, has reneged from the terms of the agreement. There is, therefore, a claim for damages for breach of contract intended to be lodged by the Applicant yet there was evidence that the Respondent has started moving its assets even out of the country with the intention to defeat the claim for damages by the Applicant. In his conclusion, His Lordship Justice Masuku J held that in the totality of the allegations by PJM, there is a prima facie evidence of the subsistence of its claim against the Respondent and confirmed the anti-dissipation order.
It with great pride that the firm announces yet another victory for its clients in other mureva injunctions and a special thanks goes to the Senior Partner Mr. Mxolisi Dlamini as well the assistance received from the other Partners in relation to the team work and effort to record another victory.
God Bless and thank you for a prosperous year as a firm!