The approach taken to recognition of foreign money judgments in modern Southern African cases is similar to the approach found in common law countries. The critical requirement of recognition is that the foreign court have had jurisdiction to render the judgment concerned. As held in De Naamloze Vennootschap Alintex v. Von Gerlach,1 this means not jurisdiction under the law of the state from which the judgment originated but jurisdiction under the principles of Private International Law in the state where recognition is sought. In that case, the judgment debtor conceded that the onus lay on him to establish that the judgment was unenforceable, but in later cases it was held that the party seeking to enforce the judgment had the onus of showing that the foreign court had jurisdiction.2
In De Naamloze Vennootschap Alintex v. Von Gerlach, a judgment had been given in the Netherlands in favour of a company registered there. The defendant had not appeared in the foreign court, had not submitted to its jurisdiction, and had never been in the Netherlands. The cause of action (for breach of contract) arose elsewhere. The court decided that the judgment was unenforceable. It considered the grounds on which a foreign court would be regarded as having jurisdiction over the judgment debtor but did not reach a____________________
Questia, a part of Gale, Cengage Learning. www.questia.com
Publication information: Book title: Common Law in Southern Africa:Conflict of Laws and Torts Precedents. Contributors: Peter B. Kutner - Author. Publisher: Greenwood Press. Place of publication: New York. Publication year: 1990. Page number: 41.
This material is protected by copyright and, with the exception of fair use, may not be further copied, distributed or transmitted in any form or by any means.