In July 2015 we placed a post on our Facebook page regarding the ruling by Judge Desai in the Western Cape High Court, regarding illegitimate Emolument Attachment Orders (also colloquially known as garnishees). In this matter, Judge Desai ruled that these orders, which instructed employers to deduct amounts from the salaries of their employees to pay to creditors for outstanding debts owed by these employees, had been obtained illegitimately and were therefore not valid. Although this case was specific to 15 employees, the Honourable Judge also stated that there was wider application, and that there was a need to re-evaluate the ways in which Emolument Attachment Orders (or EAOs) are granted.

Subsequently, another case in the Western Cape High Court (Tuffy Manufacturing and others vs Various debt collectors) has used Judge Desai’s ruling to challenge other EAOs. Part of the ruling which has been handed down in this case states that employers in the Western Cape are exempt from implementing EAOs which have been obtained outside the province. This is an interim order, which applies until there is a final decision regarding Judge Desai’s ruling (which has been appealed) in the Constitutional Court. This final decision is expected to be handed down by March 2016.

Therefore, if you are an employer (or salaries controller) in the Western Cape who has received an instruction to deduct a monthly instalment from an employee’s salary, but the Court Order relating to that instruction was obtained in a Court outside the Western Cape, you should not implement that deduction. Also, if you’re an employee who sees that there is suddenly a Garnishee or EAO amount being deducted from your salary, you’d be well-advised to query that with your HR/Salaries department. They should have a copy of the Court Order, instructing them to deduct a specific amount, and you’re entitled to see a copy of that Order. Check where it was granted and don’t be afraid to query its validity.

We’re not arguing that consumers who owe money to creditors should be able to escape repaying it. We ARE, however, arguing that proper procedures should be followed, and being in debt doesn’t justify being treated unjustly.