Old Debt

[Dave Sharkie]

Hi,
I'm new to this so please forgive me if i place this in the wrong forum.For the past year or so i've been hounded by collectors for debt that a judgement was granted in 2003 from std bank,which has not been paid.The mail i received says words to the effect that if not paid within 10 days,i will have to appear in court and will be subject to a fine or imprisonment for 3 months.were do i stand? any advise?

[Citizen X]

Hi Dave,



Based upon the given information, I suspect that you were sent a letter ahead of the official section 65 summons. If so, you will have been summoned for what is called a section 65 enquiry. The purpose is for the court and creditor to establish exactly what your current financial position is. The idea is that when judgment was granted, you may not have been in a financial position to pay, but you may be in this position now.
You required to bring bank statements(3 months) and a breakdown of your income and liabilities.
Have a look at the attached precedent/template, it should be similar to what you have received.

[Dave Sharkie]

Thanks for the info,the templates are not what i received,thanks anyway.
Enjoy your day

[Dave A]

The mail i received says words to the effect that if not paid within 10 days,i will have to appear in court and will be subject to a fine or imprisonment for 3 months.

You can't be jailed for debt. You can be jailed for contempt of court.
If you get a summons, turn up. (Or provide a vey good reason for not being able to attend.)

[Citizen X]

You can't be jailed for debt. You can be jailed for contempt of court.
If you get a summons, turn up. (Or provide a vey good reason for not being able to attend.)

Boss, you hit the nail on the head. Law is actually about getting straight to the point or issue in dispute..

Talk about a ‘source of law,’ case law proves to be a very authoritative and informative source of law!

In Epstein v Epstein 1987 (4) SA 606 (C),[1] the applicant is Mrs Stein the mother of the respondent Mr Stein.[2] The fulcrum of the application is a letter that the respondent had written to his mother stating that he is unable to repay a loan of R6000 which he had taken from her and further that he cannot pay the rest of his creditors and is afraid of the prospect of prison.[3]



The court rejected the argument that the respondent is afraid of imprisonment on the basis that a s(65) enquiry does not commit anyone to imprisonment for been unable to pay but rather for contempt of court for not appearing.[4]

---

[1] Epstein v Epstein 1987 (4) SA 606 (C) (hereinafter Epstein)

[2] Epstein 131

[3] Epstein 131

[4] Epstein 133

[Dave Sharkie]

Thanks tor that.I'm getting my ducks in a row and will see what happens next.
Will post a update
Reagards