BCC 357/2006

This case involved the detention and sales proceedings for a digger which it was stated had wrongly been included in a company's estate. The key issue was whether the court of urgent affairs had jurisdiction which depended on whether the matter required subjective investigation.

Background

The owner of a digger filed a case against a defendant before the court of urgent affairs requesting the cessation of the detention and sales proceedings. The owner filed a civil case requesting the cessation of the detention and sales proceedings on the estates of a contracting company until the case was settled. The owner said that the digger was among the property under detention.

The court ruled that the digger should not be sold but the detention on it should still be imposed until the settlement of the civil case.

The defendant appealed the ruling before the court of appeal. The court dismissed the appealed ruling and ruled the court of urgent affairs had no mandate consider the case.

Decision