Is it really farewell to that pesky salary attachment order?

“I have read a recent article that says that due to a recent court judgement, salary attachment orders are no longer allowed. Is this correct and does that mean that the order against my salary is no longer valid?”

It is not correct that attachment orders, or legally more correct, emolument attachment orders (“EAO’s”), against your salary (generally, however incorrectly, referred to as ‘garnishee orders’) are no longer allowed and that these orders will now immediately be stopped. What is correct though, is that substantial relief has been provided for debtors against the burden of these EAO’s.

Our Constitutional Court recently reviewed the environment within which EAO’s are issued and as of 13 September 2016 introduced judicial oversight for the issuing of EAO’s and extra safeguards to protect debtors from credit providers utilising the EAO system to their advantage, effectively aligning the current legislation for the issuing of EAO’s with the Constitution. Importantly – this does not mean that all credit debt is now written off or that all EAO’s are now invalid, as the court order will not affect existing EAO’s, unless they are individually challenged. 

Although the judicial system has now been sensitised to the abuse of the EAO system and the plight of the overburdened debtor, it does not affect the remedies available to a debtor to suspend, amend or rescind an existing EAO in terms of Section 65J of the Magistrate’s Court Act.

Section 65J(7) states: 

“Any emoluments attachment order may at any time and on good cause shown be suspended, amended or rescinded by the court, and when suspending any such order the court may impose such conditions as it may deem just and reasonable.” (emphasis added)

This means that an existing EAO can be individually challenged by way of an application to court and there are no set time frames within which to bring such application. Before bringing such an application it is important to note what the court may deem as ‘good cause shown’. Taking into account the latest ruling of our Constitutional Court, the court will generally deem the following, although not exhaustive, as being ‘good cause shown’ to suspend, amend or rescind an EAO: 

1. If the court where the EAO was granted is not situated within the local jurisdiction where you live or work;
2. If the order was implemented with the wrong outstanding balance or deducts an instalment higher than what you consented to;
3. If you are over-indebted and cannot reasonably support yourself or your dependants; or
4. If the order was obtained in a fraudulent manner i.e. without your consent or proper knowledge. 

In considering the application and the relief to be granted, it should be noted that the court is not forced to rescind (remove) an EAO. The court will look at the relevant circumstances and make an appropriate order. For example, the court can decide to amend the EAO so that a smaller instalment is deducted from your salary. The court can also, for example, decide that deductions will be suspended for a set period of time – whereafter the order will be re-implemented. This all depends on your specific circumstances and what the court deems as appropriate in the circumstances.  

It is very important to note that Section 65J(7) does not allow you the opportunity to challenge the original judgment on which the EAO was granted – it only grants you the power to specifically challenge the EAO. This means that even if you are successful in rescinding an EAO order – the original judgment (debt) will not be automatically rescinded (written off). It is only the manner of repaying that debt that may change. 

Despite the greater relief and consideration afforded to a debtor through the recent court judgement, it is still advisable to seek the help of a legal specialist to consider any current EAO’s and whether grounds exist to challenge such EAO for suspension, amendment or rescission.

October 7, 2016
Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that customary marriages and civil marriages hold equal legal status. Importantly, the Court clarified the implications and validity of antenuptial contracts within the context of customary marriages.

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

The recent judgment in Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 October 2025) has brought welcome clarity to the long‑standing question of whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal was incorporated into South African labour law in the 1980s and later codified in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). In terms of section 186(1)(e) of the LRA, an employee may resign, whether with or without notice, and claim unfair dismissal on the basis that their continued employment had become intolerable. Although the concept can be difficult to apply in practice, the Constitutional Court has clarified its meaning and reaffirmed its role within our law.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest