Term 2 – Jurisdiction

High Court jurisdiction

- Concept of inherent jurisdiction of the HC = they have inherent ability / power to regulate its
procedural matters
- No limit to R for HC jurisdiction – no upper limit to the amount in HC
- HC can essentially hear almost all matters except where legislation states otherwise
- 2 sub questions –
o What level of court ?
o Which specific HC – territorial location / geography
- Common law rules & statutory factors – superior courts act
o S 21(1) of the Superior courts act = HC has jurisdiction over persons residing / being
in & in relation to all causes arising in its area of jurisdiction
o Needs to be nexus between HC & parties - otherwise court won’t be able to
effectively enforce judgement
- Common law principles
o Rationale domicile – domicile, ties in with concept that ties in w/ previous lectures –
follow the defendant to the place where he / she is resident / domiciled
o Retione re cite = where the property is situated
o Ratione re geste = where it happened – where the cause of action arose
 Where contract was concluded / supposed to be performed / breached
- Delictual cause of action arises where the delict was committed / occurred
o Elements = conduct (action / omission); unlawfulness; causation; fault; wrongfulness

- What is being claimed – put it into 3 groups = different rules applicable in these 3
circumstances & these rules have an effect on jurisdiction
o Marriage claim / divorce = s2(1) of the divorce act – tells you that a court will have
jurisdiction in a divorce action if the parties / other one of them is domiciled /
resident in the area
 Common law principle – follow the defendant; exceptions when it comes to
divorces – plaintiff is also considered
 Applies to interim maintenance; children
o Claims for money
o Claims pertaining to property
 What is Jurisdiction?
- “The power or competence which a particular court has to hear and determine an issue
between parties brought before it.”
- Determine
o General type of court competent to hear matter?
 Whether matter belongs in HC, MC, LC etc.
 To determine
 Monetary value of claim?
 Nature of matter?
o Division/seat of court may hear matter?
 Link matter to geographical jurisdiction area of court(s)
- Why is it important to get jurisdiction right?
o Legal proceedings started against person in court without jurisdiction – opponent
can defeat claim
o Action – opponent entitled to raise special plea (lack of jurisdiction) – ends matter
o Application: court will not hear matter if not satisfied that it has jurisdiction, based
on facts in paper
- When is jurisdiction determined?
o At time proceedings is instituted
o Proceedings instituted once papers initiating proceedings served on other party
o Jurisdiction existing at start of proceedings continues to exist until proceedings end,
even if grounds / basis for jurisdiction falls away during proceedings
- HC & MC jurosdoction – what are the main issues
o Common day to day civil litigation
 What is claim value? >R400 000 =HC | =< R400 000 = (Regional) MC
< R200 000 = Distric MC
o Exceptions – consent to court’s jurisdiction & abandon portion of claim that exceeds
- Bring matter in HC / MC ?
o Certain claim involve amounts of R400 00/less, but not allowed in MC due to nature
-> interpretation of will (J+HC), claim ofr specific performance w/out alternative of
damages (HC)
o Tie some aspects to geographical area to establish jurisdiction - 2 ways
 Person against whom action is instituted lives / works in area
 Incident(s) giving rise to claim happened in area
Magistrates Court Jurisdiction
- MC = creature of statute = only jurisdiction conferred by statute
- SS 26 to 50 of MC Act
- Claim’s value s29 rule claim <= R200 000 district MC & >R200 000 but <= R400 000 = regional
MC
o Exception s 38 (abandonment) ; S 39 (deduction of admitted debt) & S45 (consent)
- Nature of claim = s 46 claims which although smaller than R400 000 must be heard in HC
- S 28 = what particular MC – manner in which matter ties to MC jurisdiction

 Claim value – (s 29)

- S 29 (1) (a) – delivery/ transfer of moveable / immovable of property
o bring claim in s 29 (1)(a) if value of claim is less than R400 000
o District MC if =< R200 000 | Regional MC if > R200 00 but = < R400 000

- S 29(1)(b): ejectment
o District MC : actions of ejectment – occupier of premisses / land within district; right
of occupation in dispute; right =< R200 000 in clear value
o Regional MC: actions of ejectment – occupier of premises / land within regional
division; right of occupation in dispute; right > R200 000 but =< R400 000 in clear
value
o Clear value = value over & above rent payable
o Ejectment from business premises
 Additional method of calculation when suitable alternative premises not
available
 Calculate profit occupier reasonably expects to make over occupation period

- S 29(1)(c): right of way

o Determining right of way
o Confirm existing right of way
o Via necessitates (necessary access route)
o Value not relevant to jurisdiction

- S 29 (1)(d): liquid document / mortgage bond

o District MC = Actions on/arising out of liquid document/mortgage bond; Claim ≤
R200 000
o Regional MC = Actions on/arising out of liquid document/mortgage bond; claim >
R200 000, but ≤ R400 000
o Liquid document indicates
 Acknowledgement of indebtedness
 Ascertained amount of money
 Payment of which is due to creditor
 Identity is clear from document
o Not liquid if conditional; example = acknowledgment of debt; simple condition won’t
destroy liquidity, but where payment is conditional – dependant on something
substantive = destroy liquidity of document
  Test = ascertain to determine whether condition can be easily satisfied
without engaging in a dispute
o Examples = cheques, acknowledgments of debt, mortgage bond
o Document is not liquid if it shows payment is conditional
o ‘simple condition’ will not destroy liquidity of document, unlikely to give rise to
dispute / if disputed easily proved

- S 29(1)(e): credit agreements

o MC: actions on/arising out of credit agreement (S 1 National Credit Act, 2005 (NCA))
o S 29(1)(e) MC Act & S 172(2) of NCA: MC unlimited monetary jurisdiction in matters
falling under NCA (monetary limits = R200 & R400 000 – disregard this)
o Unlimited monetary jurisdiction arising from credit agreements
o Take note: limitation of Regional MC jurisdiction
o Locu standi

- S 29(1)(f): Matrimonial Property Act 88 of 1984

o District MC = Actions in terms of S 16(1) MPA; claim/value of property in dispute ≤
R200 000

- S 29(1B): divorce & related matters – Regional MC

o S 29(1B)(a)
 Regional MC = Hear/determine nullity of marriage/civil union
 Hear any matter/grant any order provided for in Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act 120 of 1998
o S 29(1B)(b)
 Regional MC same jurisdiction as HC in matter
 ‘General rule’ not applicable to S 29(1B)(a) claims
o S 29(1B)(c) = leave out
 Regional MC presiding officer may summon 2 persons to act as assessors in
advisory capacity on questions of fact

 Calculation of R200 000 and R400 000 limits

- Splitting of single claims not allowed (S 40)
o Substantive claim exceeding MC jurisdiction
o May not be split – object of recovering same in more than 1
o Same parties to all actions
o Same point at issue in all actions
o Claim = single COA
- Combining separate claims allowed (s 43 (1))
o 2/more claims, each different COA = 1 summons
o Court has same jurisdiction to decide each claim as it would have had if each claim
had formed sole subject of separate action
- Only capital amount claimed taken into account (ss 37(1) & 37 (2))
o S 37 (1):
 sum claimed (within jurisdiction) = balance of account
 court enquires into / take evidence upon whole account
 account contains items/ transaction exceeding jurisdiction amount
 o S 37 (2)
 Amount claimed / other relief sought within MC jurisdiction
 Jurisdiction not ousted because court must give finding on matter beyond
jurisdiction
- Interest & costs not taken into account (S 37(3))
o Considering whether claim is/is not within MC jurisdiction
o No prayer for interest on principal sum claimed/costs/general/ alternative relief
taken into account
o Prayer for general / alternative relief ignored for jurisdictional purposes

 Claims value (s 29) – exceptions – abandon, conduct, consent

- Consent (S 45)
o S 45(1)
 MC: parties consent in writing – determine action/proceeding otherwise
beyond jurisdiction
 No court other than court with jurisdiction under S 28 has jurisdiction
 Consent in writing
 No express agreement signed by parties
 Some sort of writing(s) = proof each party consented to jurisdiction
 First limitation
 S 46 claims must be heard in HC
 S 46 provisions cannot be overridden by written consent ito S 45
 Second limitation
 Parties not allowed to consent to particular MC’s jurisdiction
 Unless particular MC has jurisdiction over defendant’s person in
terms of S 28 MCA
 Proceedings already instituted/about to be instituted, parties
entitled to consent to any particular MC’s jurisdiction
o S 45(2) = Any contract provision whereby person undertakes to consent to
jurisdiction, when proceedings have been/are about to be instituted, null and void
contemplated in S 45(1)
- Abandonment (S 38(1))
o Plaintiff abandons part of claim > R200 000/ > R400 000
- S 38(2)
o Any part of claim abandoned in terms of S 38(1) finally extinguished
o Claim upheld in part only, abandonment first takes effect on part of claim not upheld
- Deduction of admitted debt (s 39)
o To bring claim within MC jurisdiction
o Plaintiff may, in summons/at any time after issue thereof
o Deduct from claim (liquidated/unliquidated
o Amount admitted to be due to defendant

 S 46 – Nature of claims
- Claims beyond MC jurisdiction
 - Parties cannot consent to MC jurisdiction
- MC must, mero motu, decline jurisdiction, even though issue not raised in defendant’s plea
- 2 types of claims: ‘status’ claims & ‘specific performance’ claims
- S46 always trumps s45

- Status claims
o Claims affecting personal status
o Wills (S 46(2)(a)): HC must hear matters relating to validity/ interpretation of
will/other testamentary document
o Mental capacity (S 46(2)(b))
 MC no jurisdiction
 Application to declare person to be of unsound mind/incapable of managing
own affairs – appointment of curator bonis
o Perpetual silence (S 46(2)(d))
 MC no jurisdiction
 Garber NO v Witwatersrand Jewish Aged Home 1985 (3) SA 460 (W)
- Specific performance claim
o If set of facts & have to determine whether s46 applies – is contractual obligation
parties try to enforce other than a claim for money?
o General rule: MC no jurisdiction w/o alternative of payment of damages
o Some debate as to meaning of specific performance
o Performance / prestasie ad factum praestandum v performance/ prestasie as
pecuniam solvendam
o Exceptions
 Rendering account in which claim </= R200 000 – MC has jurisdiction, duty
to account in different circumstances / no duty to account due to debtor-
creditor relationship
 Delivery/transfer of property(movable/immovable)</= R200 000 – MC has
jurisdiction
 Delivery of transfer of property (movable/immovable)> R200 000 with
parties consent (s45) – MC has jurisdiction, parties must consent to MC
jurisdiction s45

 Area claim linked to s 28 = Defendant’s residence / business / employment s28(1)(a)

- Where does natural person reside?
o Courts’ general approach – Beedle & Co v Bowley 1895 12 SC 401 at 403
o For jurisdiction not possible to have no residence
o More than 1 place of residence possible
o For jurisdiction by virtue of place of residence, person must reside w/in court’s
territorial jurisdiction area where legal proceedings instituted (summons/notice of
motion) is served
o Only visiting for a short period, not residing?
o Residence is not identical to domicile – more than 1 residence is possible, more than
one domicile is not
- Where dies company / close corporation reside?
o Company /cc’s central control (where head office situated/place from which
administered & controlled)
 o Registered office
o Head office / registered office on different magisterial districts / regional divisions:
each MC has jurisdiction
o Plaintiff as dominus litis may chooses where he wishes to sue
- Where does partnership reside?
o Partnership is not a legal person
o S 2 Interpretation Act 33 of 1957: partnership defined as ‘person’
o Reside where principal place of business is situated
- Where does state reside
o Pretoria
o No absolute certainty
- Meaning of ‘carries on business’
o Day to day business (regularity)
o One’s own business, not employer’s
o More than 1 distirct / regional division
o Need not have ‘place of business;
 Not so with company
 Minister of Law & Order v Patterson 1984
 General Accident Insurance CO SA Ltd Mbonambi
 Position regarding state
- Meaning of employed = people employed by others / some permanence required
- COA arising wholly (s28(d))
o MC jurisdiction – any person COA arose wholly within a district / regional division
o To succeed with claim every fact must arise w/in district / regional division
o Distinguish : facta probanda / facta probantia (King’s Transport v Viljoen 1954)
o All fact probanda, not facta probantia must occur w/in district / regional division
o Facta probanda = facts you need to prove
o COA based on delict / contract
- Other grounds of territorial jurisdiction
o Partnership (s28(1)(b)) – MC has jurisdiction – partnership with business premises /
member residing w/in district / regional division
o Incidental proceedings – s 28(1)(c) = MC has jurisdiction; proceedings incidental to
action / proceedings instituted by person themselves – cannot object to jurisdiction
– incidental = arising out of same facts
o Interpleader proceedings (s 28(1)(e)) = stakeholder in possession of property that is
not his – claim property & exclusive ownership
 S 28(1)(e)(i): execution creditor & claimants reside/employed/carry on
business in district/regional division
 S 28(1)(e)(ii): court – warrant of execution issued
 S 35(2): interpleader summons issued – court of district – judgment debtor’s
property attached
 S 28(1)(e)(iii): interpleader proceedings under S 69(2) /
 S 28(1)(e)(iv): consent to jurisdiction
o Consent 28(1)(f) = MC matter – enter appearance to defend / oppose – no objection
to jurisdiction – assume consent to jurisdiction
 Jurisdiction not conferred under s28(1)(f) in s46 matter
  S28(1)(f) may not circumvent consent ito s45(1) where claim is >R200 000 /
R400 000
o Immovable property (s28(1)(g)) = MC has jurisdiction, person who owns immovable
property; w/in district / regional division served by court
 Actions iro property / mortgage bonds thereon

- Divorce & related matters – which regional MC?

o Regional MC hear / determine nullity of marriage / civil union, relating to divorce
between persons & any question arising therefrom
 Hear any matter / grant any order provided for in Recognition of Customary
Marriages Act 120 of 1998
o For purposes of s28(1B) – regional MC has jurisdiction if either parties are domiciled
in court’s jurisdictional areas on the date on which proceedings are instituted;
ordinarily resident in court’s jurisdiction area on said date / has/have been ordinarily
resident in Republic / not less than 1 yr prior to the date

 If R250 000 claim. R100 000 counter claim. Abandon / decuct?

- If admit & deduct = R250 000 less R100 000 = R150 000
- If abandon = R200 000 – counterclaim succeeds, need to deduct R100 000 = only R100 000
- Preferably to abandon / immediately admit & deduct
- Not clear if counterclaim will succeed –

High Court Jurisdiction

 HC Jurisdiction
- Whether a HC generally & which HC specifically has jurisdiction
- Deal with situation where the defendant is a foreign peregrinus
- What is the role of consent to jurisdiction in the HC
 General Overview
- S 169 of Constitution
- S 21 Superior Courts Act 10/2013
- Doctrine of effectiveness
- Basic idea: don’t waste court’s time w/ matter where clear that court’s judgement will be
ineffective
- Effective judgement = enforceable judgement
- For enforcement, court needs control over judgement debtor’s person / property

 Most common HC jurisdiction grounds

- Ratione domicilii (defendant / respondent domociled / resident in court’s area)
 o Actor sequiter forum rei = plaintiff / applicant follows defendant / respondent to
their domicile / residence (forum domicilii)
o Meaning of domicile – S 1(2) Domocile Act 3 of 1992
o Domicile of choice acquired when physical presence (objective fact) & intention to
remain indefinitely (subjective test)
o Possible to have more than one residence but not possible to have more than one
domcile at a time
- Ratione rei gestae (COA in court’s area) = court has jurisdiction if COA arose in court’s areas
o Court = forum rei gestae
o Not necessary for all facta probanda to occur in court’s jurisdiction area
o Contractual COA
 Contract concluded (locus contractus)
 Contract to be performed (in whole/in part)(locus solutionis)
o Court of area where these element occur has jurisdiction
o Plaintiff has choice of court
o Delictual COA
 Where delict committed / occurred – court = forum delicit commissi by
virtue of ratione delict commissi -> COA may arise in 1/more than 1 place
o Other COA – jurisdiction depends on where gestae occurred; sufficient connecting
factors between matter & court
- Ratione rei sitae (property in claim in court’s area)
o Forum rei sitae = court with territorial jurisdiction where movable / immovable
property constiutiing subject matter of plaintiff’s / applicant’s claim situated

- Claims relating to property

o Court asked to make order directly affecting identified property
o Many different types of claims relating to property
o Claims dealing with title to property
o Claims for transfer / delivery of property
o Claim above relates to property (movable / immovable), not money
- Other claims, including claim sounding money
o Plaintiff seeking payment of money
o Claim for money brought on its own / as alternative to other claim
o Claim for specific performance w/o claim for money

- Other claims – which jurisdiction grounds apply?

o Defendant / respondent incola / peregrinus of SA
o Incola: person resident / domcilied w/in court’s jurisdictional area
o Peregrinus – person not domiciled / resident w/in court’s jurisdiction area
 Local peregrinus = peregrinus of court – domociled w/in SA borders
 Foreign peregrinus = person resident & domiciled in foreign country,
peregrinus of SA as a whole – nationality has nothing to do w/ it
o Majority of matters incolce defednants / respondents = incola of SA
 Ratione domocilii ratione rei gestae (including ratione contractus & ratione
delicti commissi) to ground jurisdiction
 o Different jurisdictional principles apply when defendant / respondent = peregrinus
of SA – attachment to found / confirm jurisdiction required

- Principle of effectiveness? -
o When litigate against foreign peregrinus = court will only assume jurisdiction if court
judgement will be enforceable
o Thermo Radiant Ovens

 Jurisdictional principles applicable to certain additional claims

- S42(2) of Act 10/2013 – claims against foreign peregrine
o HC civil process runs throughout country
o Process / judgement / order served / enforceable in jurisdiction of any other HC in
SA
o Court able to exercise control over defendant’s person / property, provided he is
incola of SA
o Judgement ineffective: defendant peregrinus of SA & defendant & property not in
SA when judgement given against him
o Establish jurisdiction for claim sounding money against foreign peregrinus –
attachment of defendant’s property required
o 2 options when litigating against foreign peregrinus
1. Attachments to found & confirm jurisdiction
- Attachment of defendant’s property required to establish jurisdiction for claim sounding
money to ensure that court’s judgement will be effective
- Steps to found & confirm jurisdiction
1. defendant must be peregrinus in SA
2. in which court(s) territorial jurisdiction did COA arise? – in which court’s
territorial jurisdiction is plaintiff domicile / resident
3. Application
o Confirm jurisdiction (ad confirmandam jurisdictionem): any court with territorial
jurisdiction over area where part of COA arose
o Found jurisdiction (ad fundandam jurisdictionem): court exercising territorial
jurisdiction over area where plaintiff domiciled/resides
o Defendant’s property must be in SA (corporeal / incorporeal) – may attach property
to foud jurisdiction
- Bid Industrial holdings (litigate against tourist)
o Court created an add ground in jurisdiction – where foreign peregrinus defendant
doesn’t own property in SA
o Serve summons on defendant while defendant in SA & you must demonstrate that
there’s an adequate connection between the relevant forum (seek to establish
jurisdiction) & specific matter / facts at hand = where COA arose

2. Consent to jurisdiction
- Consent relates to situation of plaintiff litigating against foreign peregrinus – role of consent
in that context
- Veneta Mineraria Spa v Carolina Colleries 1987 (A)
o Defendant was a local peregrinus of Natal & incola of Transvaal
o Plaintiff was foreign peregrinus
o COA didn’t arose in Natal
o Proceeding were institute in Durban Local Division – Natal
o Both peregrinus of Natal
o Q? whether consent can stand alone in conferring jurisdiction
o AD referred to Thermo Oven Sales – held that court can only be said to have
jurisdiction in matter if it has power to not only take cognisance but also give effect
to judgement
 In Thermo – purpose of attachment is to enable court to anouce judgement
which would be eefctive & not void
o Requirement of effectiveness has to be satisfied = can only happen if attachment of
poeprty occurs
o Court refers to palap – doesn’t say that submission / consent alone confers
jurisdiction on court
o One of the traditional grounds of jurisdiction must always be present
o Plaintiff foreign peregrinus – why is that relevant
 Plaintiff was foreign peregrinus

- Briscoe v Marais 1992 (W)

o Confirmed Veneta
o Court refers to & applies with approval principles et out in Veneta
o Court held that In case of attachment ad fundandam – attachment cannot be
replaced by consent to jurisdiction – such consent on own cannot confer jurisdiction
o Foreign peregrinus defendant

- American Flag v Great African T-shirt Corp 2000 (W)

o American flag provides that general conclusion in Veneta & Briscoe – must be
qualified
o Where plaintiff is an incola, peregrine defendant would be able to submit to courts
jurisdiction
o Submission in those circumstances thus in those circumstance serve effectively –
attachment no need to happen
o Plaintiff is foreign peregrinus; defendant is incola of Johannesburg
o Is ratione domiclli available – defendant is incola – go to Johannesburg
o Counterclaim for damages – GATS brought application to found jurisdiction
 Incola defendant become incola plaintiff
 Held Briscoe was wrong

- Foreign peregrinus defendant consents to jurisdiction = attachment impermissible

-

- Claims for divorce & associated relief

 o Regulated by statute
o Definition of divorce action ito Divorce Act 70 / 1979
o Additional jurisdiction grounds: parties are/either of parties are: Domiciled in court’s
jurisdiction area on date action instituted / Ordinarily resident in court’s jurisdiction
area on said date and have/has been ordinarily resident in RSA for period not less
than 1 year immediately prior to date
o Jurisdiction not restricted to court where defendant spouse domiciled/resident
o Plaintiff’s domicile/residence also relevant

- Claims for interdict

o Order by court that person either
 Perform some action (mandatory interdict)
 Refrain from performing some action (prohibitory interdict)
o To determine jurisdiction
 Is respondent incola/peregrinus of court?
 Is act respondent should perform/refrain from performing, linked to court’s
territorial jurisdiction area?
o 4 possibilities regarding jurisdiction
 Respondent incola & act w/in jurisdiction – court has power over
respondent & act – court can grant mandatory / prohibitory interdict
 Repsondent incola & act outside jurisdiction = distinguish between
prohibotry & mandatory interdicts
 Prohibotiry = court has power over respondent & may grant; despite
act to be carried out in another part of SA / other country
 Mandatory = Court has jurisdiction – act to be performed in SA,
although not in court’s territorial jurisdiction area ; Court has no
jurisdiction – act to be performed outside SA
 Respondent peregrinus and act within jurisdiction
 Court may compel/prohibit acts within jurisdiction area
 Grant mandatory/prohibitory interdict
 Respondent peregrinus and act outside jurisdiction
 Court has no power over respondent/act
 No jurisdiction to grant mandatory/prohibitory interdict
 Applies whether respondent local/foreign peregrinus

- Single claims involving 2/more jurisdictions

o Ratione causae continentiae: 1 court may exercise jurisdiction iro whole matter
- Inherent jurisdiction
o Superior courts’ discretionary power
o Traditionally procedural power
 Regulate proceedings and prevent abuse of process
 Protect dignity, repute, authority and compel observance of lawful orders
 Control and supervise officers
 Restrain irregularities in inferior courts’ proceedings
 Restrain irregularities in administrative (and like) authorities’ proceedings
 Create/modify remedies
 - Kosheko v Mulder – COA to arise wholly w/in courts jurisdiction (MC)
- Ex paert Jamieson in re Jameson v – concerncase in relation to -> what did the court say in
relation to the approach followed in American flag
o Went on appeal – 2002 ny judge Farland – refrained from commeting on American
flag’s correctness
- Hay Management consultants Ltd v P3 Management consultants
o Development form Veneta to Jameson v = provides summaries of those cases
- Judgement of Mbanga – Rosenberg judgement = look at from perspective of when the
timing of consent provided – up until when can you consent -> before / after attachment

 Approach HC jurisdiction question

1st question – where is the defendant

EXAMPLES – jurisdiction questions

 Mr Main Koenyn
- American citizen; regularly tours in SA
o Owns bachelor pad in Loop Street
o Has a company in SA – office in Johannesburg
o Travel around for work – sleeps in company house 3 months of the year
o Durban – time share in holiday club
- Client – Ms Buhrmeister
o Domiciled in Jamaica – goes on holiday there twice a year; lives in Bloemfontein
o Did Contract work there for 6 months - Got in conflict in Durban
- What specific court could exercise jurisdiction?
o Start w/ MC & end of HC
o 1st step is to identify who plaintiff & defendant is
o Follow the defendant = NB to look at where defendant resides
o Dominus litis = defendant
o 2nd step = what general court – monetary amount -> MC / HC
 S29 (1)(g) – catch all
 MCA – creature of statutes, link set of facts to s29 – mention that there are
monetary limits
 Is claim of such a matter that it should be decided by HC regardless of
monetary limit = not a s46 claim
o Regional MC has jurisdiction - > now which MC
o NOW which court - Remove plaintiff’s info except where COA arose
o Apply s28 – 4 possible grounds ito
 Residence
 Maine v Mayne – Cape Town on basis of residence
 Johannesburg – also residence -> 3 months out of the year
> Maine v Mayne – can have more than one residence, but
summons only served where he is currently residing
 Business
  Employment
 Where to wholly arose
 S28(1)(d) – incident occurred in Durban – whole COA arose in
Durban & therefore court would have jurisdiction
 So which courts – CT/JHB on basis of residence could have jurisdiction
Durban due to coa

- Same facts – but amount is for R475 000 = HC amount (s29(1)(g))

o Unlikely to abandon R75 000
- Consider common law grounds
o Koenyn resident in CT & JHB – not foreign peregrinus = incola of CT?JHB depending
on where he resident on the tome of service of summons
 Local peregrinus to Durban
o Apply common law grounds – domciili rei gestea rei sitae
o = ratione rei domicile / ratione rei gestae
 = Durban would have jursidiction over rei gestae
 Ratione rei domcili – ct & jhb
o = plaintiff can decide where

- If defendant only comes to holiday one week & have time share in Durban
o Foreign peregrinus
o Apply to found jurisdiction by attaching property – look at where plaintiff is incole –
Bloem
o Confirm jurisdiction – where COA arose = Durban
o Bid Industrial option – no property to be attached
 Consider this if no property to be attached
 Serve summons while in SA & demonstrate that adequate connection betw
court & the claim

- Mr Koenyn consent to jurisdiction of Bloem HC – client would like to persist to attach

property to confound jurisdiction in Bloem
o Will this be necessary
o Would answer differ if Durban HC
o Role of consent Bloem HC – veneta said common law ground of jurisdiction for
consent ot be effective & no attachment
 American flag said we can look at where plaintiff resides
 = attachment not necessary / permissible
o Durban? COA arose – recognised ground of jurisdiction; if consent; attachment
would be unnecessary & impermissible
o Limpopo – both peregrini = Veneta – no needs to be recognised ground of
jurisdicition
 Consent is insufficient on own