Hartsenberg v Iteco (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/122761) [2024] ZAGPPHC 924 (19 September 2024)

Hartsenberg v Iteco (Pty) Ltd and Another (2023/122761) [2024] ZAGPPHC 924 (19 September 2024)

The applicant's claim for damages is dismissed because the relief sought is unliquidated, disputed, and not suitable for determination on motion. The applicant failed to contradict the respondents' submissions regarding the unsuitability of the procedure and the existence of material disputes of fact. The court finds the applicant in contempt of the urgent court order dated 8 December 2023, as the order was granted by consent and remains extant. The applicant's confusion regarding compliance is not a valid excuse, and the order has not been varied or rescinded. The applicant is sentenced to incarceration for contempt, suspended on condition of compliance within 30 days.

Citation
[2024] ZAGPPHC 924
Parties
Applicant: Adolf Johan Hendrik Hartsenberg; Respondent: Iteco (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: APBCO Versekeringsmakelaars (Pty) Ltd
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2024
Case Number
2023/122761
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs; applicant found in contempt of court order; incarceration suspended on condition of compliance.
Judges
Nyathi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Breach of Employment Contract, Damages Claim, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Labour Law Contempt of Court Breach of Employment Contract Damages Claim Costs 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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adolf Johan Hendrik Hartsenberg

Applicant

Iteco (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

APBCO Versekeringsmakelaars (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to damages for alleged breach of employment contract by the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant's counter application for damages is competent in motion proceedings given the disputed and unliquidated nature of the claim.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is in contempt of the urgent court order dated 8 December 2023.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant's claim for damages is dismissed because the relief sought is unliquidated, disputed, and not suitable for determination on motion. The applicant failed to contradict the respondents' submissions regarding the unsuitability of the procedure and the existence of material disputes of fact. The court finds the applicant in contempt of the urgent court order dated 8 December 2023, as the order was granted by consent and remains extant. The applicant's confusion regarding compliance is not a valid excuse, and the order has not been varied or rescinded. The applicant is sentenced to incarceration for contempt, suspended on condition of compliance within 30 days.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs; applicant found in contempt of court order; incarceration suspended on condition of compliance.

Orders

  • The damages counter application of Mr Adolf Johan Hendrik Hartsenberg is dismissed with costs on a party and party scale.
  • It is declared that Adolf Johan Hendrik Hartsenberg is in contempt of the urgent court order granted under case number 2023/122761.