IntroductionThe main purpose of this article is to undertake an analysis of the effect that the creditor benefit requirement has on garnishment applications. In terms of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936 there are two processes through which a debtor can seize his assets. Either with the voluntary surrender of his assets or with the forced seizure. In both cases it is expected that the seizure will be granted "for the benefit of the creditors". Debt relief is one thing yet to be achieved if the benefit requirement is not relaxed. While the law does not outline what constitutes a benefit to creditors, courts have interpreted it as encapsulating a benefit to creditors. Loubser expresses the view that: “South Africa cannot remain untouched by developments in Europe and the United States of America, and there are signs that even in South African insolvency law greater attention is gradually being paid to the plight of the insolvent debtor and the opportunity he should be given to start over.” our South African insolvency law system:1. In Ex parte Arntzen, the court rejected the application for voluntary seizure of this asset because the court was not satisfied that the applicant possessed realizable assets of sufficient value to cover all the costs of seizure which, under the law, will be payable from the residue free of his estate. Furthermore, it would be advantageous for his creditors if his assets were seized. In this case we can see that the courts have used this advantage to require the creditor to decide whether or not to grant this request. In ex parte ShmuklerThe cou...... middle of paper ......50 000 and who can afford to pay debts in installments. Furthermore, debt review does not guarantee the release of debtors. In my humble opinion, I would like to state that I agree with the above articles discussed as the South African insolvency law needs a complete change for the benefit of debtors as discussed above. Clearly the benefit from the creditor's requirement has placed an obstacle in the path of complete debt cancellation and a fresh start for the debtor. I believe that for debtors who are drowning in debt, an overhaul of the systems in place is necessary if we are to return our country to the economically strong position it has been in the past. For South Africa to decrease the number of people applying for these seizure orders, we need to change our processes and put in place other debt relief measures to deal with debtors requesting them.