Giba v Mbatha and Another (25605/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 152 (30 April 2013)

Giba v Mbatha and Another (25605/12) [2013] ZAGPJHC 152 (30 April 2013)

The court found that the first respondent was aware of the order dated 2 May 2012 and failed to comply with its terms, specifically by not submitting the required report for the week of 7 to 11 May 2012. The respondent's bare denial and lack of explanation for non-compliance were insufficient to discharge the evidentiary burden to show that the failure was not wilful or mala fide. The respondent's arguments regarding joinder and the validity of the order were dismissed as irrelevant and misplaced. The court exercised its discretion not to grant a punitive costs order, considering the limited nature of the contempt.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 152
Parties
Applicant: Giba, Ntombikayise Tercia; Defendant: Mbatha, Bheki Goodwill; Defendant: Chrims Petroleum Investment
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 April 2013
Case Number
25605/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Contempt of Court Application Following Non Compliance With a Prior Order.
Outcome
The first respondent is found to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order dated 2 May 2012.
Judges
DTvR du Plessis
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Costs Order, Compliance With Court Order
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Costs Order Compliance With Court Order

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 3 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Giba, Ntombikayise Tercia

Applicant

Mbatha, Bheki Goodwill

Defendant

Chrims Petroleum Investment

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Contempt of Court Application Following Non Compliance With a Prior Order.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent is in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order dated 2 May 2012.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant has locus standi to bring the contempt application.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order should be granted against the first respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent was aware of the order dated 2 May 2012 and failed to comply with its terms, specifically by not submitting the required report for the week of 7 to 11 May 2012. The respondent's bare denial and lack of explanation for non-compliance were insufficient to discharge the evidentiary burden to show that the failure was not wilful or mala fide. The respondent's arguments regarding joinder and the validity of the order were dismissed as irrelevant and misplaced. The court exercised its discretion not to grant a punitive costs order, considering the limited nature of the contempt.

Court Disposition

The first respondent is found to be in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order dated 2 May 2012.

Orders

  • The first respondent is found to be in contempt of court in respect of the order dated 2 May 2012.
  • The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.