The Credit Ombud, Nicky Lala-Mohan, says it seems there is still widespread abuse of the garnishee order system to deduct debt repayments from employees, despite a far-reaching Constitutional Court ruling tightening up the issuing of these orders. In September 2016, the Constitutional Court confirmed a High Court ruling by Judge Siraj Desai that aspects of the enforcement of emolument attachment (EAO) were unconstitutional, notes a report on the IoL site.

'When Judge Desai ruled that some EAOs were unconstitutional, unlawful and invalid, we all hoped that this could bring relief to the consumers who suffer from the abuse and exploitation of EAOs,' says Lala-Mohan. Before the ruling, many EAO applications from creditors were processed by court clerks, without the oversight of a judge or magistrate.

'There had been abuse of consumers, with many unaware of the correct process to follow,' Lala-Mohan is quoted as saying. Subsequent to the Constitutional Court ruling, the Courts of Law Amendment Act was promulgated, placing a cap on the amount that can be attached: not more than 25% of the consumer's gross earnings.

This, the ombud says, went a long way to ending situations where consumers have been left with almost no salary after EAO deductions. The Credit Ombud, who often receives and investigates complaints relating to EAOs, recently met with the Human Rights Commission and the National Credit Regulator to discuss measures to address undesirable practices, which 'appear to thrive despite the latest legislation'.

Full IoL report