Festyn CC t/a Picasso's Pub and Pizzeria v Van Der Merwe (68088/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1258 (31 May 2024)

Festyn CC t/a Picasso's Pub and Pizzeria v Van Der Merwe (68088/2017) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1258 (31 May 2024)

The court found that the respondent's answering affidavit was filed out of time without condonation and, in the absence of agreement between the parties or leave of court, was not properly before the court and was struck out. The application was decided solely on the applicant's papers. On the merits, the applicant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent contravened the interim court order. The evidence regarding the alleged attempt to revoke the liquor licence was speculative and uncorroborated, and did not amount to laying a false complaint as prohibited by the order. The incidents involving the taking of photographs of vehicles did not constitute harassment or...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 1258
Parties
Applicant: Festyn CC t/a Picasso's Pub and Pizzeria; Respondent: Jacobus Johannes Van Der Merwe
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2024
Case Number
68088/2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment After in Limine Point; Decided on Applicant's Papers Only
Outcome
Application dismissed; no order as to costs.
Judges
Kubushi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interim Interdict, Condonation for Late Filing, Harassment, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Interim Interdict Condonation for Late Filing Harassment Costs Award

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Festyn CC t/a Picasso's Pub and Pizzeria

Applicant

Jacobus Johannes Van Der Merwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment After in Limine Point; Decided on Applicant's Papers Only

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the interim court order granted on 13 September 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constituted harassment, intimidation, or laying false complaints as prohibited by the interim order.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's answering affidavit should be admitted despite late filing without condonation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's answering affidavit was filed out of time without condonation and, in the absence of agreement between the parties or leave of court, was not properly before the court and was struck out. The application was decided solely on the applicant's papers. On the merits, the applicant failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the respondent contravened the interim court order. The evidence regarding the alleged attempt to revoke the liquor licence was speculative and uncorroborated, and did not amount to laying a false complaint as prohibited by the order. The incidents involving the taking of photographs of vehicles did not constitute harassment or...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; no order as to costs.

Orders

  • The respondent’s answering affidavit is declared pro non scripto.
  • The application is dismissed.