Scottish Tube Co of SA Ltd v Rodgers

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: de Vos Hugo J
• Judgment Date: 11 August 1966
• Citation: 1966 (4) SA 526 (GW)
• Hearing Date: 30 June 1966
• Court: Griqualand-West Local Division

de Vos Hugo, J.:

In this matter an order was made against the respondent E for the payment of a sum of money. The respondent failed to pay and the applicant applied for a financial enquiry into the respondent's affairs and for an order in terms of Rule 45 (12) (j) for the payment of periodical instalments. In the original action a power of attorney was filed but no further power was filed for the purposes of the present F application and I was asked for a ruling as to whether a further power was necessary. I made an order in terms of the Rule and reserved judgment on the question of the power.

The power filed in this case contains the usual provision 'to proceed to the final end and determination thereof' and if the present proceeding is one in which no further power is needed the authority for it must be G found in the words quoted. These words have been considered in several decisions, notably in Howe v Church, 1914 T.P.D. 611, and Pretoria City Council v Meerlust Investments (Pty.) Ltd., 1962 (1) SA 321 (AD) at pp. 326 - 7. In D. & D. H. Fraser Ltd v Waller, 1916 AD 494, the decision in Howe v Church, supra, was approved and in the course of his judgment, INNES, C.J., said the following at p. 498:

'It has not been the general practice of South African Courts to apply a H rigid interpretation to documents like the one before us and to hold that the authority of an attorney appointed to conduct a suit before a particular tribunal absolutely ceases post latam sententiam. It has been held to continue for supplementary purposes such as enforcing execution, or obtaining orders for sequestration or...