Garnishee and Emoluments Attachment Orders in South Africa: the 25 Percent Rule (2026)

An emoluments attachment order (EAO) and a garnishee order both let a judgment creditor recover a debt without going back to court for a fresh judgment each month, but they attach different things and, since the Constitutional Court's 2016 ruling, an EAO (like a s72 garnishee order, which always required a court) cannot be issued without a court's involvement.

Information last verified on 23 July 2026. This page provides general legal information about South African law on emoluments attachment orders and garnishee orders, not legal advice on your individual situation.

Two different orders, two different targets

Section 65J of the Magistrates' Courts Act lets a judgment creditor cause an emoluments attachment order (EAO) to be issued, directing a debtor's employer to pay part of their salary or wages toward the judgment debt. Section 72 is broader: it lets the court, on the judgment creditor's application, order "the attachment of any debt at present or in future owing or accruing to a judgment debtor by or from any other person", excluding the State, and this is what people usually mean when they refer to a "garnishee order" attaching a bank account rather than a salary. Section 72(2) gives the debtor the same core protection as an EAO: if the court is satisfied that sufficient means to maintain the debtor and their dependants will not otherwise be left, it must set aside or amend the garnishee order.

Why judicial oversight became mandatory: USB Legal Aid Clinic

For years, EAOs were routinely issued by a clerk of the court rather than a magistrate, often with the debtor having signed a blanket consent to jurisdiction at the time of signing the original credit agreement, sometimes in a court far from where they lived or worked. The Constitutional Court struck this down in University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic and Others v Minister of Justice and Correctional Services and Others [2016] ZACC 32 (13 September 2016). The Court held that section 65J(2) was unconstitutional because it allowed an EAO to be issued without any judicial oversight, and it read words into the section requiring that "the court has so authorised, after satisfying itself that it is just and equitable that an emoluments attachment order be issued and that the amount is appropriate." The Court separately confirmed that a debtor cannot be made to consent to the jurisdiction of a court other than the one in the district where the debtor resides or is employed, the exact practice the individual applicants in the case had suffered, where their EAOs had been issued by clerks in Magistrates' offices far from where they actually lived and worked.

The 25 percent cap and the codified process (Courts of Law Amendment Act 7 of 2017)

Parliament then wrote the Constitutional Court's reading-in into the Act itself, and went further. The Courts of Law Amendment Act 7 of 2017, in force from 1 August 2018, substituted section 65J in full. The current section 65J(1A) provides: "The amount of the instalment payable or the total amount of instalments payable where there is more than one emoluments attachment order payable by the judgment debtor, may not exceed 25 per cent of the judgment debtor's basic salary", and defines "basic salary" as "the annual gross salary a judgment debtor is employed on divided by 12" which "excludes additional remuneration for overtime or other allowances." Where more than one EAO is running against the same debtor at once, all of them together are capped at that same 25 percent.

The Amendment Act also added a formal notice-and-opposition process at section 65J(2A) to (2E): before an EAO is authorised, the judgment debtor gets 10 days to file a notice of intention to oppose, on grounds that can include that the amounts claimed are erroneous or not in accordance with the law, or that the deduction would exceed the 25 percent cap, followed by a contested hearing if opposition is filed.

Which court has jurisdiction

Section 65J(1)(a) is explicit: a judgment creditor may cause an EAO to be issued only "from the court of the district in which the judgment debtor resides, carries on business or is employed." This directly answers the practice the Constitutional Court condemned in USB Legal Aid Clinic, where debtors had been made to consent in advance to a distant court's jurisdiction.

Challenging or cancelling an order

There are two separate opportunities to challenge an EAO. Before it is authorised, you have the 10-day notice-of-opposition window described above. After it has been issued, section 65J(6) requires the garnishee, the debtor, or any other interested party who comes to believe the debtor will not be left with sufficient means for maintenance, or that the amounts claimed are wrong, to notify the judgment creditor in writing; if the matter is not resolved, either side can set it down for a court hearing. Separately, section 65J(7) gives a court a general power: "any emoluments attachment order may at any time on good cause shown be suspended, amended or rescinded by the court," and the court can attach conditions when it suspends an order.

Not the same as a maintenance attachment

An EAO under section 65J of the Magistrates' Courts Act attaches salary to satisfy an ordinary civil judgment debt. That is a different mechanism from the "attachment of emoluments" under section 28 of the Maintenance Act, which a Maintenance Court uses to enforce an unpaid child or spousal maintenance order. The two work in a broadly similar way, deducting from a salary, but they sit in different Acts, follow different procedures, and are not interchangeable. See Maintenance Court: How to Apply and Enforce for the maintenance-specific process.

Related reading

• Debt Review in South Africa
• Prescription of Debt
• Debt and Consumer Law in South Africa
• Maintenance Court: How to Apply and Enforce
• South Africa Laws

This guide is general legal information, not legal advice. For advice on your own situation, consult an attorney, or contact Legal Aid South Africa on 0800 110 110 if you cannot afford one.

Frequently Asked Questions

How much of my salary can be taken under an emoluments attachment order?

No more than 25 percent of your basic salary, whether one emoluments attachment order is running against you or several at the same time. Basic salary is your annual gross salary divided by 12, and excludes overtime and other allowances (Magistrates' Courts Act, section 65J(1A)).

Can a court clerk issue an emoluments attachment order against my salary without a magistrate's involvement?

No. The Constitutional Court ruled in 2016 that an emoluments attachment order requires actual court authorisation, after the court satisfies itself that issuing the order is just and equitable and that the amount is appropriate. That requirement is now written directly into section 65J of the Magistrates' Courts Act.

What is the difference between an emoluments attachment order and a garnishee order on my bank account?

An emoluments attachment order, under section 65J, attaches part of your salary through your employer. A garnishee order, under section 72, attaches a debt owed to you by any other person, which in practice most often means money in a bank account. Both need a court's authorisation and both protect the debtor's means of maintenance.

Can I get an emoluments attachment order set aside or reduced?

Yes. You can oppose it before it is authorised, within a 10-day notice period, on grounds such as the amount exceeding the 25 percent cap or being erroneous. After it has been issued, a court may suspend, amend or rescind it at any time on good cause shown.

Which court can issue an emoluments attachment order against me?

Only the court of the district where you reside, carry on business, or are employed. Making a debtor consent in advance to a distant court's jurisdiction was one of the practices the Constitutional Court found unconstitutional in 2016.