Koppe & Co v Accreylon Co, Incorporated

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Roper J
• Judgment Date: 01 April 1948
• Court: Transvaal Provincial Division
• Hearing Date: 01 April 1948

Roper, J.:

This is an application for attachment of certain goods ad fundandam jurisdictionem. The applicants, a firm of commission agents carrying on business in Johannesburg, have been in the habit of negotiating sales of goods on behalf of the respondent, which is a company carrying on business in New York. A number of transactions have been put through and sales negotiated in this way have been carried out by the respondents and, as a result of these transactions, it is alleged by the applicants that a substantial sum of money is owing to them by way of commission.

Among the sales negotiated is one of a parcel of soft goods sold to the firm of Osman Alli. These goods were despatched from America by the respondent to this firm but were rejected by it as not being in accordance with sample. The consignment consists of six packages, five of which are at present in Natal and the sixth in Pretoria. The applicant seeks to attach these six packages of goods in order to found an action against the respondent for the commission which is alleged to be due to it.

It appears from the papers that the goods were to be delivered to the purchasers upon acceptance of a sight draft for the purchase price, and that upon presentation of this draft acceptance of it was refused. The goods were consigned to respondent's agents in South Africa, who appear to have the relative shipping documents and who are, therefore, in possession of the goods at the present time as a result of the refusal of Osman Alli to accept the goods. The ownership of the goods has, therefore, not passed from the respondent.

There is no difficulty in making an order for attachment of the one package of goods which is at present in Pretoria but the question has arisen whether this Court is entitled to order the attachment of the goods which are in Natal. Mr. Mendelow, who appeared for the applicant, referred to Baker v Mastronikolis (1944 CPD 485) in which the Court held that the object of making an attachment of property of a peregrinus debtor was not merely to enable an applicant to found jurisdiction but also to make assets available to satisfy the judgment of the Court. That is no doubt the position but it does not follow that the Court has jurisdiction to make an attachment merely because the effect of the attachment

Roper J

will be to make assets available for execution in case the applicant succeeds in his action.

Mr. Mendelow also referred to sec. 112 of the South Africa...