After months of perseverance, the University of Stellenbosch Legal Aid Clinic secured refunds for all 15 of its hard-pressed clients who were at the centre of last year's court battle over emolument attachment orders. The money was paid back in the weeks before the Christmas holidays, providing much-needed relief for the applicants."Although it was the subject of a court order issued in July, our clients were only refunded a few weeks ago," said Mathilda Rosslee of the legal aid clinic who has played a key role in the drawn out battle.mini_story_image_vleft1The full amount of the refund is just over R207000. The amounts collected by law firm Flemix, which was using the attachment orders to collect debts on behalf of its clients, varied between R7000 and R22000 for each of the 15.In almost every case the amount paid was hugely in excess of the original loan.In a landmark decision in the High Court in Cape Town, Judge Siraj Desai declared the attachment orders to be "unlawful, invalid and of no force and effect".The orders compel an employer to deduct money from an employee's salary to repay debt owed to a creditor who has obtained a judgment against the employee.Odette Geldenhuys, senior associate at law firm Webber Wentzel, which is acting pro bono in the matter, said the refunds represented a "major wake-up call" for credit providers who did not use valid orders to collect their debts.Flemix was forced to refund the full amount paid by the applicants. This means there are still amounts owed on the original loans that were granted. The legal aid clinic has asked that these underlying debts be written off on the basis of reckless lending.However, Geldenhuys said the applicants realised they were still required to repay the original loans. If the underlying debts are not written off, Geldenhuys said the credit providers would have to go to court and secure proper orders.mini_story_image_vright2This requirement follows from Desai's ruling that sections of the Magistrate's Court Act are invalid because they allow a clerk of the court, rather than the magistrate, to issue an attachment order. This means there is no judicial oversight of the process, which makes it open to abuse by debt collectors, particularly as the debtor is often not present in court.Last year's court action followed two years of preparation by the legal aid clinic and businesswoman Wendy Appelbaum.Flemix has appealed seven of the eight orders issued by Desai in his ruling. But it did not appeal the order nullifying the attachment orders, which is why it has refunded the full amount of the orders involved in the court action. Its appeal will be heard in the Constitutional Court on March 3.The Constitutional Court's ruling on the matter will have far-reaching consequences for the unsecured lending industry.After years of abusive practices the industry has been under attack from a number of sources. The National Credit Regulator is tightening its oversight role and the Department of Trade and Industry has introduced significant caps to the charges that can be levied by unsecured lenders.crottya@sunday times.co.za..