Urgent asset preservation: Standard Bank’s anti-dissipation interdict in Phangisa

On 17 June 2025, the Gauteng Division granted Standard Bank an urgent anti-dissipation interdict against Snyman De Jager Attorneys and Ms Nomvula Phangisa, preventing the release of approximately ZAR800 000 in sale proceeds pending sequestration proceedings. This judgment demonstrates the critical role of urgency and interim interdictory relief in safeguarding creditors’ interests.

Facts and urgency

Standard Bank held guarantees and a mortgage bond over Ms Phangisa’s Midstream property, securing debts exceeding ZAR20 million. When the property was sold in mid-April 2025, the bank learned that net proceeds of around ZAR800 000 would soon be paid out.

Repeated requests for an undertaking from Ms Phangisa to hold the funds in trust failed, and with transfer registration set for late June 2025, the bank launched an urgent application on 10 June 2025. Acting Judge Liebenberg AJ recognised bona fide urgency, rooted in the imminent registration of transfer and the risk of asset dissipation, and dispensed with normal service and filing rules under Uniform Rule 6(12)(a) .

Legal framework for anti-dissipation interdicts

An anti-dissipation interdict, a specialised interim remedy, aims to prevent a debtor from disposing of assets in a manner that would render final relief ineffectual. To succeed, an applicant must establish:

• Prima facie right: A clear legal or equitable right to preserve the asset.
• Apprehension of irreparable harm: A well-grounded fear that assets will be dissipated.
• Balance of convenience: That prejudice to the applicant outweighs that to the respondent.
• No alternative remedy: Absence of any satisfactory means to protect the right.

In insolvency contexts, the case of Knox D’Arcy Ltd and Others v Jamieson and Others added two further jurisdictional facts: (5) a liquid debt due and (6) intentional dissipation to defeat creditors’ claims, each of which Standard Bank established on the uncontested figures and guarantees.

Court’s analysis

Applying the Webster v Mitchell probabilities test, the court treated Phangisa’s bare denials as unconvincing and accepted the bank’s factual matrix. It found:

• A prima facie right via enforceable guarantees and bond.
• A well-grounded apprehension given Phangisa’s refusal to cooperate and her other outstanding debts.
• A favourable balance of convenience, since trusteeship of the proceeds imposes minimal burden on her but protects all creditors.
• No alternative remedy, as sequestration alone cannot forestall immediate dissipation.

Consequently, the interdict was granted, compelling the conveyancer to retain the proceeds pending the sequestration outcome.

Practical implications

For litigators specialising in urgent relief

• Document urgency early: Secure concrete evidence of imminent risk (such as a transfer date) to satisfy Rule 6(12)(a).
• Frame interim applications rigorously: Structure affidavits to mirror the four-fold interdict test and, where applicable, Knox D’Arcy’s insolvency extensions.
• Neutralise denials: Anticipate points in limine and pre-empt bare denials by compiling uncontroverted facts and probability analyses.

For creditors and clients

• Act promptly: Immediate steps upon learning of asset realisation (i.e. demand letters, engagement with conveyancers and urgent court filings) can make or break preservation efforts.
• Understand remedies: An anti-dissipation interdict preserves value for all creditors, not merely for debt recovery, and complements insolvency proceedings.
• Prepare for costs risk: Urgent relief demands precision; flawed or self-induced urgency can lead to adverse cost orders.

At LnP Beyond Legal, our dedicated practice maintains an immediate and rapid-response protocol. We specialise in crafting airtight affidavits, invoking the correct rules for expedited service, and navigating complex interim interdicts with surgical precision.

For immediate assistance with anti-dissipation interdicts or any urgent applications, contact Dee-dee Mathelela, Head of our Dispute Resolution Practice.