Harmony Gold Mining Ltd and Another v Mbatha and Another (2023-0001343) [2023] ZAGPJHC 765 (5 July 2023)
The court found that the respondents, particularly Mr Mbatha, deliberately violated the court order issued on 12 April 2023 by participating in a protest on 13 April 2023, which was not authorized by any valid permit. The defence that the order was not explained in a language understood by Mr Mbatha was rejected, as evidence showed he was proficient in English and communicated effectively in that language. The applicants discharged the onus of proving contempt, as all requirements were met: existence of the order, service, and non-compliance. The court also expressed concern regarding the conduct of Mr Madikane and African Black Lawyers Foundation NPC, finding prima facie evidence of...
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 765
- Parties
- Applicant: Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited; Applicant: Randfontein Estates Limited; Respondent: Bongumusa Cyprian Mbatha; Respondent: Thuthukani Community Development NPC
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 5 July 2023
- Case Number
- 2023-0001343
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Contempt Application Following Breach of Court Order
- Outcome
- Application granted. Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to comply with the original order within seven days. Costs awarded against first and second respondents on attorney and client scale.
- Judges
- ML Senyatsi
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Urgent Interdict, Bill of Rights Limitation, Legal Practice Act Violation
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited
Applicant
Randfontein Estates Limited
Applicant
Bongumusa Cyprian Mbatha
Respondent
Thuthukani Community Development NPC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt Application Following Breach of Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the court order granted on 12 April 2023.
- 2 Whether the respondents' protest on 13 April 2023 constituted a deliberate and mala fide breach of the order.
- 3 Whether the defence that the order was not explained in a language understood by the first respondent is valid.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the respondents, particularly Mr Mbatha, deliberately violated the court order issued on 12 April 2023 by participating in a protest on 13 April 2023, which was not authorized by any valid permit. The defence that the order was not explained in a language understood by Mr Mbatha was rejected, as evidence showed he was proficient in English and communicated effectively in that language. The applicants discharged the onus of proving contempt, as all requirements were met: existence of the order, service, and non-compliance. The court also expressed concern regarding the conduct of Mr Madikane and African Black Lawyers Foundation NPC, finding prima facie evidence of...
Court Disposition
Application granted. Respondents found in contempt of court and ordered to comply with the original order within seven days. Costs awarded against first and second respondents on attorney and client scale.
Orders
- The application is heard as an urgent application under Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
- The first and/or second respondents are declared not to have complied with the Mudau J order and are directed to comply within seven days.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment