Winning a case means little if, by the time judgment is granted, the other side has emptied its bank accounts or destroyed the documents that prove your claim. South African law offers two powerful urgent remedies to prevent this: the anti-dissipation interdict, which preserves assets, and the Anton Piller order, which preserves evidence.
Both are exceptional. Courts grant them only on strong evidence, and applicants who overreach risk costs orders and damages claims. This article explains when each remedy is available and what the courts require.
Anti-dissipation interdicts
An anti-dissipation interdict prevents a respondent from removing, transferring, hiding or otherwise dealing with specified assets until a claim against them is decided. It does not give the applicant security over the assets; it simply keeps them within reach.
The requirements
The leading case is Knox D’Arcy Ltd v Jamieson 1996 (4) SA 348 (A). In addition to the usual requirements for an interim interdict, the applicant must generally show that the respondent:
- is dissipating or secreting assets, or is likely to do so; and
- is doing so with the intention of defeating the applicant’s claim.
That second requirement is often the hardest to prove. Moving money, selling property or restructuring finances is not enough on its own; people are entitled to manage their affairs. The question is whether the evidence shows a purpose of frustrating the claim.
The Supreme Court of Appeal reaffirmed this in KSL v AL [2024] ZASCA 96, a divorce matter. It held that, save in exceptional circumstances, intention to defeat the claim must be shown. Transfers into a trust and an annuity before divorce did not, without more, prove that intention. The court treated Knox D’Arcy as binding.
Typical examples
- a debtor begins transferring funds to offshore accounts after a demand is sent;
- a director strips a company of assets before a claim against the company is decided;
- a spouse disposes of property to reduce an accrual claim, with evidence of the purpose;
- a business partner sells shared assets at undervalue to a related party.
Practical points
- Evidence of intention is key. Messages, timing of transfers immediately after a demand, sales at undervalue to related parties and attempts to conceal transactions are typical indicators.
- Be specific. Identify the assets and limit the order to what is needed to protect the claim.
- Consider an undertaking. A respondent may agree to preserve assets or provide security, avoiding the need for an order.
Anton Piller orders
An Anton Piller order (named after an English case) allows an applicant’s representatives, supervised by an independent attorney and usually accompanied by the sheriff, to enter premises, search for specified evidence and hand it to the sheriff for safekeeping. It is typically granted ex parte and executed without warning, because notice would give the respondent a chance to destroy the evidence.
The requirements
The Appellate Division accepted these orders in Universal City Studios Inc v Network Video (Pty) Ltd 1986 (2) SA 734 (A). The requirements were settled in Shoba v Officer Commanding, Temporary Police Camp, Wagendrift Dam 1995 (4) SA 1 (A). The applicant must show prima facie that:
- it has a cause of action against the respondent which it intends to pursue;
- the respondent has in its possession specific documents or things that are vital evidence for that cause of action; and
- there is a real and well-founded apprehension that the evidence may be hidden, destroyed or spirited away before the case comes to trial.
The order is for preservation, not discovery. The evidence is held by the sheriff pending further order, not simply handed to the applicant to use as it wishes.
Typical examples
- a former employee has copied client databases, designs or source code and is using them for a competitor;
- counterfeit goods are being stored and sold, and records of suppliers may be destroyed;
- there is evidence of fraud and the documents proving it are held by the wrongdoer.
Strict safeguards
Because an Anton Piller order is so intrusive, courts insist on:
- full and frank disclosure in the ex parte application, including facts that favour the respondent;
- a narrowly defined list of items to be searched for;
- an independent supervising attorney to oversee execution and report back to court;
- the respondent’s right to seek legal advice before the search starts, and to anticipate the return day.
An order obtained on incomplete disclosure, or executed beyond its terms, is likely to be set aside, and the applicant may face punitive costs.
Choosing the right remedy
Anti-dissipation interdicts protect your ability to recover money; Anton Piller orders protect your ability to prove your case. In some matters both are needed. In others, a simpler remedy, such as an ordinary interim interdict or a negotiated undertaking, achieves the same result at lower cost and risk.
How O’Reilly Law can help
We bring and oppose urgent applications to freeze assets and preserve evidence in commercial, shareholder, employment and family disputes. Our litigation and dispute resolution team can assess the evidence quickly and advise whether an application is likely to succeed.
Related reading: Restraint of trade interdicts · Spoliation orders
Contact us to discuss your matter.
This article is general information and not legal advice. Whether an order will be granted depends on the facts and the evidence. Correct as at October 2026.