{"issue_text":"Whether requirements for anti-dissipation interdict are established","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Asset disposal by respondents during pending litigation"}
{"issue_text":"Whether balance of convenience favors granting interdict against first respondent","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Property sold to repay mortgage, residual value insignificant"}
{"issue_text":"Whether failure to cite purchasers amounts to fatal misjoinder","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Second respondent sold properties to third parties not cited"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The liquidator of Century Discount House, a financial institution under liquidation since February 2004, sought an anti-dissipation interdict to prevent former directors from disposing of their immovable properties pending determination of a main suit claiming personal liability for the institution's debts. The first respondent had sold property to repay a bank loan, while the second respondent sold properties for personal sustenance after retirement.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases