IMATU and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (44390/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 412 (27 June 2014)

IMATU and Others v City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality and Others (44390/2014) [2014] ZAGPPHC 412 (27 June 2014)

The court found that the respondents were not in contempt of court because the filing of a rescission application, in the absence of mala fides or evidence of delaying tactics, precludes a finding of wilful and mala fide contempt. The respondents had prepared an opposing affidavit and intended to oppose the urgent application, indicating good faith. The honest belief that non-compliance was justified due to the pending rescission application is incompatible with the intent required for contempt. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 412
Parties
Applicant: IMATU; Applicant: Suzanne Terry; Applicant: Elizna Rouchelle Von Mollendorft; Respondent: City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality; Respondent: Jason Ngobeni; Respondent: Steven Khazumula Ngobeni
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2014
Case Number
44390/2014
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt of Court Application Following an Earlier Urgent Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S Potterill
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Rescission of Judgment, Rule 49 11, Urgent Interdict
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Rescission of Judgment Rule 49 11 Urgent Interdict

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IMATU

Applicant

Suzanne Terry

Applicant

Elizna Rouchelle Von Mollendorft

Applicant

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality

Respondent

Jason Ngobeni

Respondent

Steven Khazumula Ngobeni

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt of Court Application Following an Earlier Urgent Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of court for failing to comply with the order granted by Vorster J on 10 June 2014.
  2. 2 Whether the filing of a rescission application suspends the operation of the court order under Rule 49(11).

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were not in contempt of court because the filing of a rescission application, in the absence of mala fides or evidence of delaying tactics, precludes a finding of wilful and mala fide contempt. The respondents had prepared an opposing affidavit and intended to oppose the urgent application, indicating good faith. The honest belief that non-compliance was justified due to the pending rescission application is incompatible with the intent required for contempt. The application was therefore dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application of the applicants is dismissed with costs.