SHABTAI v BAR & ORS 2014 (2) ZLR 862 (H)

Flynote

Interdict — "anti-dissipation" interdict — nature and purpose of interdict — requirements for grant of — same as any other interim interdict — reasons to grant interdict — matters which court should consider

Headnote

An anti-dissipation interdict is just an ordinary interdict to restrain the disposal of assets. The interdict prevents the respondent from dealing freely with his assets but grants the applicant no preferential rights over those assets. The usual requirements for the grant of an interdict must be met, that is: (1) a prima facie right, even if it be open to some doubt; (2) a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the relief is ^e not granted; (3) that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interim interdict; and (4) that there is no other satisfactory remedy.

In deciding whether to grant this type of interdict, one of the major considerations is whether the respondent would still have sufficient property to satisfy any judgment that may eventually be given against him and whether his continued disposal of his assets is deliberately intended ^e to frustrate any such judgment. Justice may require that a restriction be placed on the respondent's ability to deal with his own assets where it has been shown that he has been acting mala fide, with the intention of rendering ineffective the judgment that the court may grant against him. This is so even where it would not normally be justified to compel him ^e to regulate his bona fide expenditure so as to retain sufficient funds in his patrimony for the payment of claims. The purpose of the interdict is not to be a substitute for the claim for damages but to reinforce it — to render it more effective. And the question whether the claim is a satisfactory remedy in the absence of an interdict would normally answer itself. Except where the respondent is a Croesus, a claim for damages ^e buttressed ^e by an interdict of this sort is always more satisfactory for the plaintiff/applicant than one standing on its own feet. The question of an alternative remedy accordingly does not arise in this sort of case.