▁really ▁could ▁not ▁pay , ▁through ▁no ▁fault ▁of ▁his ▁own , ▁went ▁to ▁ga ol ▁for ▁his ▁failure ▁to ▁do ▁so . ▁ ▁Did c ott ▁J ▁went ▁on ▁to ▁hold ▁▁ ▁that ▁the ▁interests ▁of ▁credit ors ▁were ▁plain ly ▁relevant ▁to ▁any ▁constitution al ▁app rais al ▁of ▁the ▁prov isions ▁with ▁the ▁effects ▁set ▁out ▁above ; ▁ ▁that ▁credit ▁played ▁an ▁important ▁part ▁in ▁the ▁modern ▁management ▁of ▁commerce ; ▁ ▁that ▁the ▁rights ▁of ▁credit ors ▁to ▁recover ▁the ▁deb ts ▁ow ed ▁to ▁them ▁should ▁command ▁the ▁court ' s ▁respect ; ▁and ▁ ▁that ▁the ▁enfor cement ▁of ▁such ▁rights ▁was ▁the ▁legit imate ▁business ▁of ▁South ▁African ▁law . ▁ ▁This ▁did ▁not ▁mean , ▁however , ▁that ▁the ▁interests ▁of ▁credit ors ▁should ▁be ▁allowed ▁to ▁ride ▁rough sh od ▁over ▁the ▁rights ▁of ▁deb t ors . ▁The ▁legisl ation ▁in ▁question ▁permitted ▁that ▁most ▁e greg iously ▁in ▁the ▁four ▁respect s ▁mentioned ▁above , ▁and ▁was ▁un reason able ▁and ▁un just ifiable ▁on ▁those ▁cum ul atively ▁opp ress ive ▁scores . ▁Its ▁clear ▁invasion ▁of ▁the ▁right ▁to ▁personal ▁freedom ▁which ▁section ▁ 1 1 ( 1 ) ▁of ▁the ▁Constitution ▁guaranteed ▁to ▁deb t ors , ▁as ▁it ▁did ▁to ▁everyone ▁else , ▁was ▁therefore ▁not ▁count en anced ▁by ▁section ▁ 3 3 ( 1 ). ▁ ▁The ▁bad ▁parts ▁of ▁the ▁stat ute ▁were ▁not ▁jud icial ly ▁sever able ▁from ▁the ▁rest ▁of ▁its