Excerpt: For 32 years, South Africans facing execution have had crucial household goods, tools of trade, farming implements and professional equipment protected according to a monetary limit still rooted in 1994. LFN has now given Justice Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi until 10 September 2026 to fix the R2 000 section 67 protection — or face a constitutional challenge and potential class proceedings. Learn what section 67 means, what to do when the sheriff arrives, and whether property previously taken from you could become relevant to this historic project.
Read the letters found underneath this article.
If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?
or make a quick donation… MobiPaid
South Africans have been losing household goods and tools of trade under an execution protection still valued in 1994 rands. LFN has now given the Justice Minister one month to fix it — or face a constitutional challenge and a potential class action.
Imagine this.
You lose your job.
Your business struggles.
A medical emergency drains your savings.
Interest piles up.
The bond, loan, rental account, municipal account or some other debt gets away from you.
Eventually somebody obtains judgment.
Then one morning there is a knock at the door.
It is the sheriff.
A warrant has been issued.
The sheriff starts identifying movable property for attachment.
The television.
The lounge suite.
The fridge.
The microwave.
Furniture.
Tools.
Equipment.
Perhaps the very tools you use to earn tomorrow’s income.
For millions of South Africans, this is not some theoretical law-school exercise.
It is one of the most frightening moments a financially distressed family can experience.
But here is something many South Africans have probably never been told:
The law itself recognises that even a person who owes money should not simply be stripped of everything necessary to survive and earn a living.
There is a statutory safety net.
It is found in section 67 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act, 1944.
The problem?
Part of that safety net is still valued in 1994 money.
Yes.
1994.
The year Nelson Mandela became President.
The year South Africa held its first democratic national election.
The year before Windows 95 was released.
More than three decades ago.
And while prices, salaries, food, electricity, vehicles, furniture and practically everything else have changed dramatically since then, the Ministerial monetary protection applicable to important categories of property under section 67 appears to have remained stuck at:
R2 000
That is what Liberty Fighters Network (“LFN”) is now challenging.
On 11 August 2026, LFN delivered an open and final pre-litigation demand to the Minister of Justice and Constitutional Development, Ms Mmamoloko Kubayi.
The Minister has been given until 10 September 2026 to address the problem.
If she does not, LFN intends approaching the High Court for constitutional relief and is considering asking the Court to certify appropriate class proceedings for people who may have suffered loss because this statutory protection was allowed to decay for decades.
This project could ultimately affect far more South Africans than most people presently realise.
⚖️ FIRST: WHAT EXACTLY IS SECTION 67?
When a creditor has obtained an enforceable judgment, execution against the debtor’s property may follow.
But execution has never meant:
“Take absolutely everything.”
Section 67 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act specifically protects certain property against seizure and sale in execution.
The Constitutional Court recognised the importance of this protection in Jaftha v Schoeman and Others; Van Rooyen v Stoltz and Others. The Court explained that section 67 limits the movables which may be attached and that the listed protections are clearly aimed at preserving items necessary for the debtor’s survival.
That is critically important.
The law recognises a basic principle:
A judgment creditor may enforce a debt.
But enforcement should not unnecessarily destroy the debtor’s ability to live.
And it should not unnecessarily destroy the debtor’s ability to work.
Section 67 therefore protects several categories of property.
Some are protected without being subjected to the R2 000 monetary ceiling.
Others are protected only up to the monetary value determined by the Minister.
🛏️ WHAT PROPERTY DOES THE LAW PROTECT?
Among the section 67 protections are:
🛏️ Necessary beds, bedding and clothing
Necessary beds, bedding and wearing apparel belonging to the debtor and the debtor’s family are protected.
Think about what that means.
The law does not contemplate children sleeping on the floor because their parent owes money.
It does not contemplate stripping a family of the clothing necessary for ordinary life.
These protections are not luxuries.
They are about human dignity.
🍞 Food and drink for the family
Food and drink sufficient for the needs of the debtor and family for approximately one month are also protected.
Again, the principle is obvious:
Execution is supposed to recover a debt — not starve a household.
🪑 Necessary furniture and household utensils
Here things become extremely important.
Necessary furniture, other than beds, and household utensils are protected only insofar as they fall within the amount determined by the Minister.
And the amount currently reflected for this protection is:
R2 000
That amount was determined through Government Notice R385 published on 1 March 1994.
Think about R2 000 in the context of a household in 2026.
A refrigerator alone can exceed that amount.
A washing machine can exceed it.
A modest lounge suite can exceed it.
Basic household furniture can exceed it many times over.
So while Parliament created a protection for necessary household possessions, inflation has steadily eaten away at what that protection actually means.
🔧 ARE YOUR TOOLS PROTECTED?
This may be one of the most important parts of the entire project.
Section 67 also protects:
🔨 Tools and implements of trade.
But again, only up to the Ministerially determined amount.
Currently:
R2 000
Imagine a plumber.
An electrician.
A mechanic.
A carpenter.
A welder.
A builder.
A gardener.
A handyman.
A hairdresser.
A seamstress.
A technician.
A small repair business.
Perhaps you have fallen behind with debt precisely because business has been bad.
Now execution arrives.
Your tools may be some of the only things standing between you and total financial collapse.
Take those tools away and what happens?
You lose the means through which you could earn money.
You lose the means through which you could feed your family.
And, ironically, you may lose the very means through which you could ultimately repay the creditor.
That is why section 67 exists.
Yet a R2 000 protection in 2026 can hardly perform the same function as a R2 000 protection did in 1994.
🚜 FARMERS ARE ALSO AFFECTED
Farmers receive specific protection for certain stock, tools and agricultural implements.
Again:
R2 000.
Anyone familiar with agricultural equipment will immediately appreciate how astonishing that figure has become.
The law supposedly protects productive agricultural property.
But if the monetary protection attached to it becomes practically meaningless, the words remain while the protection disappears.
📚 PROFESSIONAL EQUIPMENT IS ALSO INCLUDED
Section 67 furthermore protects professional books, documents and instruments necessarily used by a debtor in his or her profession.
Once again, the presently reflected monetary threshold is:
R2 000
Consider the modern replacement cost of professional equipment.
Computers.
Specialised instruments.
Reference materials.
Equipment required by technicians and other professionals.
A monetary protection written into legislation can become meaningless if the monetary value is never realistically maintained.
💥 AND HERE IS THE PART MOST PEOPLE DO NOT KNOW
There is another significant protection.
The Act gives a court a discretion, in exceptional circumstances and subject to conditions it determines, to increase the monetary amounts applicable to the affected section 67 categories.
That means the R2 000 figure should not automatically be treated as though absolutely nothing more could ever be protected.
This may become extremely important to a debtor facing execution.
🚨 SO WHAT SHOULD YOU DO IF THE SHERIFF ARRIVES?
First, remain calm.
Do not obstruct or threaten a sheriff who is lawfully performing official functions.
But neither should you assume that the existence of a warrant means that every movable object in your home or business may simply be taken.
Know that section 67 exists.
If property falling into one of the protected categories is being identified for attachment, expressly raise section 67.
Tell the sheriff that you contend that particular items are protected from attachment under section 67 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act.
Identify the items.
Explain why they are necessary.
For example:
“This is my work equipment.”
“These are the tools through which I earn my income.”
“This is necessary household furniture.”
“These are farming implements.”
“These are professional instruments necessary for my work.”
Do not merely argue orally.
Where practicable, put your objection in writing or even record the conversation with the sheriff who has to agree as an officer of the court.
Create a record.
Record:
- the sheriff’s name;
- the date and time;
- the case number;
- the creditor;
- the warrant relied upon;
- the property identified;
- the approximate value;
- your objection;
- why you say the property is protected;
- whether the sheriff nevertheless attached it.
Photographs and documentary proof of ownership or use may become important.
Receipts, invoices, photographs of tools being used in your trade, business records and other evidence may later assist.
And remember the court’s exceptional discretion.
Where the statutory R2 000 limitation does not realistically protect the necessary property involved, legal steps may potentially be considered to request appropriate relief from the Court.
Every case will depend upon its facts, and anyone confronted with imminent execution should obtain case-specific assistance where possible.
But the important message is this:
Do not simply assume that being a debtor means you have no rights.
You do.
🏦 “BUT I OWE THE BANK MONEY.”
That does not extinguish your constitutional rights.
Neither does owing:
- a bank;
- a municipality;
- a landlord;
- a business;
- another individual;
- a finance company; or
- another judgment creditor.
A valid debt and a lawful judgment are one question.
How that judgment may lawfully be enforced is another.
LFN is not arguing that debts should simply disappear.
Nor are we arguing that lawful creditors should never recover money owed to them.
The point is far more fundamental.
A constitutional legal system must balance enforcement with human survival and dignity.
A person experiencing financial hardship should not unnecessarily be pushed into permanent destitution through the very machinery that is supposedly administering justice.
📉 HOW DOES A R2 000 PROTECTION DISAPPEAR WITHOUT ANYONE REPEALING IT?
This is perhaps the most fascinating aspect of the problem.
Nobody needed to repeal section 67.
Nobody needed Parliament to vote that debtors should receive less protection.
Nobody needed to publish legislation saying:
“From now onwards judgment debtors will gradually lose their statutory protection.”
Inflation could do the work silently.
Year by year.
R2 000 buys less.
Then less.
Then less again.
The wording remains exactly where it was.
The statute can still proudly proclaim that necessary furniture or tools are protected.
But if the amount attached to that protection becomes insignificant, the protection itself progressively disappears.
That is why LFN told the Minister in its final demand:
Inflation has effectively been permitted to amend section 67 in favour of execution creditors without Parliament ever voting for such an amendment.
That is one of the core constitutional issues which may ultimately have to be decided by the Court.
⏳ 32 YEARS.
The R2 000 determination dates from 1 March 1994.
More than 32 years have passed.
That alone is extraordinary.
But there is another part of this story.
LFN raised the alarm five years ago.
On 18 February 2021, LFN wrote to then Justice Minister Ronald Lamola.
The problem was explained.
The R2 000 amount was identified.
Inflation was identified.
The prejudice to financially distressed South Africans was identified.
The constitutional implications were raised.
And the Minister was expressly warned that litigation could follow.
LFN required intervention by 19 March 2021.
Nothing meaningful appears to have changed.
That history is now central to the project.
Because there is an important difference between:
“Nobody realised there was a problem.”
and:
“Government was expressly warned about the problem and it nevertheless remained unresolved for another five years.”
LFN’s final demand of 11 August 2026 accordingly places considerable emphasis on the period after the Ministry received actual written notice.
🤔 THEN SOMETHING INTERESTING HAPPENED IN JULY 2026
On 22 July 2026, the Justice Ministry proudly announced an increase in the monetary jurisdiction of the Small Claims Courts.
The maximum increased from:
R20 000
to:
R30 000
with effect from 1 August 2026.
LFN has no problem with that increase.
It is good that ordinary South Africans can take larger disputes through the comparatively accessible Small Claims Court system.
But then the Ministry explained why the increase was necessary.
It said the jurisdiction needed to:
“keep pace with rising costs”.
The previous Small Claims adjustment had been made in 2019.
Seven years earlier.
Now consider the comparison.
Small Claims Court:
Seven years without adjustment?
Government says rising costs justify increasing it.
Section 67 debtor protection:
Thirty-two years without adjustment?
Apparently still R2 000.
Same country.
Same inflation.
Same rising costs.
Very different urgency.
And that is precisely the contradiction LFN has now put before the Minister.
⚖️ WHO IS THE JUSTICE SYSTEM REALLY DESIGNED TO PROTECT?
The question becomes even more uncomfortable.
On 23 April 2026, Minister Kubayi addressed a conference concerning the Legal Practitioners’ Fidelity Fund.
There she publicly stated:
“The sustainability of the legal profession is in our interest as the Department of Justice and Constitutional Development.”
The Minister discussed various interventions involving the legal profession, State legal work, transformation, stakeholder engagement and amendments to the Legal Practice Act.
Again, nobody says a properly functioning legal profession is irrelevant.
But LFN asks a very simple question:
Where is the same urgency for the people standing at the other end of the legal machinery?
Lawyers have professional organisations.
Lawyers have statutory structures.
Lawyers have councils.
Lawyers have conferences.
Lawyers have representation.
Lawyers have access to policymakers.
But who sits at the conference table for the pensioner whose lounge furniture is being attached?
Who lobbies for the mechanic whose tools are being inventoried?
Who represents the unemployed mother watching household property being marked for execution?
Who speaks for the farmer whose productive tools may be taken?
Who speaks for the family already struggling to buy food?
This is where LFN enters the fight.
💰 DEBT RECOVERY MUST NOT BECOME A POVERTY MACHINE
There is something deeply self-defeating about removing productive property from someone who is already unable to pay.
Consider the mechanic again.
He owes R30 000.
He owns tools.
Those tools enable him to repair cars.
Repairs generate income.
Income enables him to feed his family and service debts.
Attach and sell those tools and you may recover a fraction of their replacement value.
But now the mechanic cannot work.
His ability to repay the remaining debt gets worse.
His family gets poorer.
He may need social assistance.
He may incur more debt merely to replace the tools.
The creditor may recover very little.
The sheriff incurs execution charges.
Legal costs grow.
Everyone participating in the machinery may earn something.
Except the person who needed the tools to climb out of debt.
That is exactly why minimum protections against execution matter.
They are not rewards for refusing to pay debts.
They are protections against turning temporary financial distress into permanent economic destruction.
🪑 WHAT ABOUT THE PROPERTY ALREADY LOST DURING THE LAST 32 YEARS?
That is where this project may become much bigger.
LFN is not limiting its investigation to changing the amount for the future.
The final demand expressly records that the consequences of the alleged omission can no longer be regarded as merely prospective.
There may be South Africans whose property was attached and sold when that property would possibly have enjoyed protection had the section 67 amount retained a constitutionally rational value.
That raises a potentially enormous question:
What about them?
👥 THE POTENTIAL CLASS ACTION
LFN is considering seeking certification of appropriate class proceedings in terms of section 38(c) of the Constitution.
This does not mean that a class action has already been certified.
It has not.
Certification would have to be sought from and granted by a competent Court.
The class definition would also have to be carefully developed from the evidence.
But the possible class contemplated in LFN’s final demand may include persons whose property within the relevant section 67 categories was attached and/or sold at a time when it would probably have been protected had the Ministerial amount maintained a constitutionally rational real value.
Particular attention may be given to losses occurring after 19 March 2021.
Why that date?
Because by then the Justice Ministry had received LFN’s 2021 demand and had been expressly requested to fix the position.
LFN has nevertheless reserved its right to consider an earlier or differently defined class period depending upon:
- the evidence;
- prescription;
- constitutional considerations;
- the interests of justice; and
- whatever governmental records ultimately emerge.
💵 WOULD EVERYONE AUTOMATICALLY GET MONEY?
No.
And we must be responsible about this.
A class action does not mean that everybody who has ever had property attached will automatically receive compensation.
Different questions may arise.
Was the property one of the protected categories?
What was it worth?
When was it attached?
Was it actually sold?
Would it have been protected under a constitutionally rational threshold?
Who owned it?
What loss resulted?
Has a claim prescribed?
Was some other legal process involved?
Was there causation between the Ministerial omission and the particular loss?
Those issues may vary between individual class members.
That is why LFN has contemplated the possibility of a bifurcated class procedure.
In simple terms:
Stage one could decide the big common questions.
For example:
Was Government’s failure to adjust the protection constitutionally unlawful?
Was the Minister obliged to act?
Was the continuing R2 000 amount irrational?
Did the State wrongfully allow the protection to deteriorate?
Stage two could deal with individual claims.
Who qualifies?
What property was lost?
What was its value?
What compensation or other remedy is legally justified?
That could make an otherwise enormous case manageable.
🔎 WHO SHOULD START LOOKING AT THEIR OLD RECORDS?
If you have previously had movable property attached or sold by a sheriff, particularly from 2021 onwards, this project may eventually become relevant to you.
Especially consider preserving information if the sheriff attached or sold:
🔧 tools you used to earn a living;
🚜 farming tools or agricultural implements;
🪑 necessary household furniture;
🍳 household utensils;
📚 professional books;
💻 professional instruments or equipment; or
other property potentially falling within section 67.
Do not throw your documents away.
Look for:
- warrants of execution;
- sheriff inventories;
- notices of attachment;
- sale-in-execution documents;
- sheriff statements;
- court orders;
- case numbers;
- creditor correspondence;
- attorney correspondence;
- photographs;
- receipts;
- valuations;
- bank statements;
- proof of what was sold;
- proof of what the property was used for;
- proof of replacement costs;
- dates of attachment and sale.
Even if you presently believe the documents are useless, preserve them.
If class proceedings are ultimately certified, documentary evidence may become enormously important.
📝 IF THE SHERIFF ATTACHED YOUR WORK TOOLS, WRITE THIS DOWN NOW
While events are still fresh, create a written history.
When did it happen?
What was taken?
What was each item used for?
What did replacing it cost?
Could you continue working without it?
Did you lose work or income?
Were you forced to borrow money to replace it?
Did the sheriff sell the goods?
What did they sell for?
What did those goods actually cost to replace?
Did you tell the sheriff the goods were necessary?
Do you have witnesses?
These are the kinds of factual questions which can become important much later.
Memory fades.
Documents disappear.
Start preserving the history now.
🛑 IMPORTANT: THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU MAY RESIST THE SHERIFF
LFN must make this clear.
Do not physically obstruct a sheriff.
Do not hide property in defiance of a lawful process.
Do not threaten officials.
Do not damage or dispose of attached property.
Instead:
Assert your rights lawfully.
Raise section 67.
Identify protected property.
Make your objection clear.
Put it in writing or voice record.
Preserve evidence.
Seek assistance.
And where necessary, approach a competent court for relief.
The rule of law must work in both directions.
A debtor must respect lawful execution.
But a creditor and sheriff must equally respect the protections Parliament placed around the debtor.
⚠️ THE R2 000 FIGURE IS NOT NECESSARILY THE END OF THE STORY
Another important point deserves repeating.
Section 67 permits a court, in exceptional circumstances, to increase the Ministerially determined amounts applicable to certain categories of exempt property.
Most ordinary South Africans probably do not know that.
And many people confronting execution may never have been told.
That discretion may potentially be important where rigid application of an obsolete R2 000 amount would cause exceptional injustice.
Whether it assists in a particular case will depend upon the facts and the relief properly placed before the Court.
But people need to know that the law is not necessarily as helpless as it may appear from the outdated monetary figure alone.
📢 EVEN THE LEGAL PROFESSION HAS CALLED SECTION 67 “FORGOTTEN”
This is not merely an LFN observation.
In August 2024, De Rebus, the South African attorneys’ journal, published an article specifically dealing with section 67 and describing it as:
“A forgotten provision?”
The article itself drew attention to the outdated limitation.
So Government can hardly pretend that this is some exotic defect discovered yesterday.
The warning signs have been visible.
LFN formally raised them in 2021.
The legal profession discussed the problem publicly in 2024.
We are now in 2026.
Still:
R2 000
🔥 WHY LFN HAS NOW DRAWN A LINE IN THE SAND
LFN’s demand to Minister Kubayi is extensive.
Among other things, LFN requires the Minister to:
✅ increase the section 67 amounts through the statutory mechanism already available to her;
✅ restore at least the real protective value which R2 000 represented in 1994;
✅ consider whether ordinary inflation adjustment is even sufficient;
✅ introduce a rational mechanism for future periodic reviews;
✅ explain why the amount was not adjusted for more than three decades;
✅ explain what happened after LFN’s 2021 warning;
✅ identify departmental records concerning the issue;
✅ investigate information concerning potentially affected executions; and
✅ explain what remedial mechanism Government proposes for people who may have suffered legally cognisable losses.
The Minister has until:
⏰ 10 SEPTEMBER 2026
If satisfactory compliance does not follow, LFN intends approaching the High Court without further demand.
🏛️ WHAT COULD LFN ASK THE COURT TO DO?
The contemplated litigation may potentially seek relief including:
⚖️ A constitutional declaration
A determination of the Minister’s constitutional and statutory obligations relating to the section 67 amounts.
⚖️ Judicial review
Potential review under PAJA where applicable, alternatively under the constitutional principle of legality.
⚖️ A finding of irrationality or unconstitutionality
LFN may ask the Court to determine whether allowing the protection to remain stagnant is irrational, unreasonable and/or inconsistent with the Constitution.
⚖️ A mandatory order
The Court could potentially be asked to compel the Minister to exercise the statutory power within a specified period.
⚖️ Structural relief
Government could potentially be required to report back to the Court concerning implementation.
⚖️ Interim constitutional protection
Appropriate just and equitable relief may be considered while the defect is being remedied.
⚖️ Class certification
LFN may seek certification of appropriate proceedings for affected people.
⚖️ Restorative or patrimonial relief
Where legally established, appropriate compensation or other restorative relief may ultimately be pursued.
The exact relief will depend upon Government’s response, the evidential record and the proceedings eventually instituted.
💣 WHY THE PERIOD AFTER 2021 COULD BECOME PARTICULARLY IMPORTANT
Government may attempt to explain why nobody acted between 1994 and 2021.
But after 18 February 2021, an additional fact entered the picture:
LFN expressly warned the Justice Ministry.
And on 19 March 2021, the deadline imposed in that communication expired.
That means that for more than five years the responsible Ministry has potentially been sitting with actual notice of the complaint.
The final demand accordingly reserves LFN’s right to argue that continued failure to act after that notice may constitute grossly negligent and/or reckless governmental inaction, depending upon what the evidence and departmental records ultimately reveal.
That is a serious allegation.
It will have to be proved.
But that is exactly why LFN has demanded preservation of the Department’s records.
We want to know:
What happened to the 2021 letter?
Who received it?
Was it referred anywhere?
Did officials investigate?
Were recommendations made?
Was the Minister advised?
Was section 67 discussed?
Was an amendment considered?
Was nothing done?
And if nothing was done:
Why?
💥 “KEEP PACE WITH RISING COSTS.”
Those words may haunt this dispute.
They are the Justice Ministry’s own words concerning the Small Claims Court increase.
If monetary limits must “keep pace with rising costs” when Government wants to expand the jurisdiction of a court, then why does that principle mysteriously disappear when inflation is destroying the protection of the possessions of poor and distressed people?
LFN intends asking that question until somebody answers it.
🧑⚖️ A JUSTICE SYSTEM EXISTS FOR PEOPLE — NOT FOR AN INDUSTRY
Legal practitioners have an important role.
Sheriffs have an important role.
Banks have legal rights.
Creditors have legal rights.
Courts must enforce lawful obligations.
But none of these institutions exists above the Constitution.
The administration of justice does not exist primarily to generate legal fees.
Execution does not exist to feed an industry.
And financially distressed citizens are not raw material from which an enforcement economy should extract its income.
The ultimate test of the justice system is not how efficiently it processes paperwork.
It is how fairly it treats human beings when they are at their weakest.
❤️ SOMETIMES GOOD PEOPLE FALL ON BAD TIMES
This project is important because debt does not automatically mean dishonesty.
People lose jobs.
Businesses collapse.
Customers do not pay.
Marriages end.
Breadwinners die.
People become ill.
Interest compounds.
Unexpected expenses happen.
Municipal disputes arise.
Banks call up loans.
A pandemic closes businesses.
A vehicle breaks.
A crop fails.
A salary disappears.
A family can move from stability to crisis remarkably quickly.
There is a dangerous tendency to speak about “debtors” as though they are a different species of human being.
They are not.
Today’s creditor can become tomorrow’s debtor.
A financially secure professional can be one diagnosis, one retrenchment or one failed business away from serious financial distress.
The protections in section 67 are therefore not “for somebody else”.
They are potentially for all of us.
🔨 THE TOOLS MUST REMAIN IN THE HANDS THAT CAN REBUILD
This is perhaps the simplest way to understand LFN’s project.
If someone falls down financially, the law should permit legitimate debt recovery.
But it should not unnecessarily kick away the ladder that person needs to climb back up.
A mechanic needs tools.
A farmer needs implements.
A tradesperson needs equipment.
A family needs basic household possessions.
A professional may need instruments and documents.
Take away the very things through which that person can rebuild, and execution stops being debt collection.
It begins becoming economic destruction.
Section 67 was designed to prevent at least part of that destruction.
LFN now intends making sure that the protection means something again.
✊ WERE YOUR GOODS ATTACHED OR SOLD?
Then this project may concern you.
Especially if:
- your property was attached after 19 March 2021;
- your tools of trade were taken;
- necessary household furniture was taken;
- farming tools or implements were taken;
- professional equipment was taken;
- the sheriff told you that only R2 000 worth of such property could be protected; or
- you believe the execution left you unable to work, earn an income or maintain basic household necessities.
Preserve your evidence.
Follow this project.
Share the information with someone who may have experienced execution.
The potential class proceedings have not yet been certified, and nobody should presently assume entitlement to compensation.
But if proceedings follow, the people affected must be identifiable.
📣 HELP US FIND THE PEOPLE THIS LAW MAY HAVE FAILED
There may be thousands of stories buried in old sheriff inventories and forgotten court files.
A carpenter who lost his tools.
A pensioner whose furniture disappeared.
A small farmer stripped of productive implements.
A family whose household possessions were auctioned.
A tradesperson who could no longer work.
People who thought:
“That is just how the law works.”
Perhaps it should never have worked that way.
Perhaps the real question is not why those people failed financially.
Perhaps the question is why the State allowed a statutory protection supposedly intended for them to remain valued in 1994 money for more than three decades.
🛡️ KNOW YOUR RIGHTS BEFORE THE SHERIFF KNOCKS
Share this article with:
🏠 homeowners;
🏢 tenants;
🔧 tradespeople;
🚜 farmers;
💼 small business owners;
👴 pensioners;
👩👧 struggling families;
💳 consumers with debt;
🏦 people facing bank litigation;
and anyone presently experiencing financial difficulty.
Knowing about section 67 before execution occurs is infinitely better than discovering it after your property has already been sold.
🔔 WHAT HAPPENS NEXT?
Minister Kubayi has until 10 September 2026.
The easiest outcome remains available to Government.
Fix it.
Increase the amount.
Restore meaningful protection.
Create a system ensuring that the amount is reviewed periodically.
Investigate those who may already have suffered prejudice.
That would avoid unnecessary litigation.
But if Government elects not to act, LFN is prepared to place the matter before the High Court.
And then the question will no longer simply be:
“Why is the amount still R2 000?”
The Court may ultimately be asked a much more difficult question:
What responsibility does the State carry for allowing it to remain R2 000 for this long?
🔥 32 YEARS IS NOT “FROM TIME TO TIME”
Those five words capture this entire fight.
Section 67 allows the Minister to determine the amounts “from time to time”.
Yet the relevant R2 000 determination dates to 01 March 1994.
Thirty-two years.
LFN said it plainly in its final demand:
Thirty-two years is not “from time to time”.
And we stand by it.
The Constitution does not exist only for those who can afford lawyers.
Dignity does not disappear when somebody owes money.
Equality does not disappear when a judgment is granted.
The rule of law does not belong only to creditors.
And a person does not surrender every protection afforded by Parliament merely because life went wrong.
Your bed matters.
Your food matters.
Your tools matter.
Your ability to work matters.
Your family matters.
Your dignity matters.
And when the law says that some things must remain protected, that protection cannot be permitted to become worthless through 32 years of silence.
LFN has now put Government on terms.
The clock is running.
10 September 2026.
After that, if the section 67 protection remains trapped in 1994, the next knock may not be at a debtor’s door.
It may be at the door of the High Court.
Liberation Greetings
Liberty Fighters Network
📎 READ THE DOCUMENTS
Copies of the following correspondence are available below:
1. LFN’s original letter to the Minister of Justice dated 18 February 2021
Request to adjust the value of property exempted from execution.
2. LFN’s final pre-litigation demand dated 11 August 2026
Protecting the Legal Profession While Abandoning Judgment Debtors: Final Demand for the Immediate Adjustment of the Section 67 Execution Exemption.
IMPORTANT NOTICE
This article provides general public-interest information concerning LFN’s section 67 project and should not be interpreted as individual legal advice. The legality of any particular attachment, execution process or potential claim depends upon its own facts and applicable law. The contemplated class proceedings referred to herein have not yet been certified by a Court, and no person should presently assume that he or she qualifies for compensation or other relief merely because property was previously attached or sold.
If you like our work, why not consider a donation or gift of your choice?
or make a quick donation… MobiPaid
Leave a Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.