ANTI-DISSIPATION INTERDICT
This is a form of an interdict (injunction) that bars the respondent in a case from freely dealing with assets that they may own personally or jointly or they possess at the time that a case is instituted. It is of importance to note that this case does not give the petitioner any preferred rights over those assets that are in question.
In the decided case of Karimakwenda v Bushu & Ors HH 156/04 it was held that:
“the purpose of an anti-dissipatory interdict is to stop a respondent from dissipating his/her/its property to frustrate the satisfaction of a judgement that the applicant hopes to obtain against the respondent…..The right that the applicant therefore needs to establish in an anti-dissipatory interdict is that he will be entitled to obtain satisfaction of his judgement against the property that the respondent is dissipating”
An anti-dissipation interdict translates to a prohibitory interdict and the requirements are as were listed in the decided case of Mine Mills Trading (Private) Limited & Ors v NJZ Resources (HK) Limited SC 392/13
- Prima facie right despite the right being capable of dispute;
- There is an infringement of rights or that the infringement of one’s rights is imminent;
- That one will suffer irreparable harm if the sought relief is not granted by the court;
- That there is no other satisfactory remedy under the law;
- That the balance of convenience favours the granting of the application the said interdict.
When an interdict is issued, it may not be to prevent the respondent in the case from losing control of his assets but rather to prevent him from keeping them locked away so that the applicant cannot access them. The purpose of making an application for such an interdict is to stop a respondent in their tracks where they are evidenced to be acting in a manner that is unfair and seeks to prevent the execution of the applicant’s case by interfering with the property in question.
Anti-dissipation interdicts are used by the public to ensure that when judgements on the pending litigation are passed they are not a brutum fulman (a mere empty threat or the judgement does not benefit the applicant because of one reason or the other. For example, it can be that the property being disputed over has been sold or damaged). An application for such an interdict is usually done on an urgent basis.
This article is for general information purposes only. Contact a Lawyer for advice and guidance.
