Kempton Park Taxi Association and Others v Mdaka and Others (18064/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 157 (19 March 2015)

Kempton Park Taxi Association and Others v Mdaka and Others (18064/2012) [2015] ZAGPPHC 157 (19 March 2015)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish contempt of the court order on two grounds. First, the evidence of continued collection of monies from members of the first applicant was insufficient and procedurally defective, as crucial supporting documents and affidavits were introduced for the first time...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 157
Parties
Applicant: Kempton Park Taxi Association; Applicant: E M Masinga; Applicant: P P Loliwe; Applicant: M N Thoobe; Applicant: M T E Mkhonto; Applicant: T A Majosi; Applicant: M J Ndawonde; Applicant: T V Thwala; Respondent: F J Mdaka; Respondent: M J Modupo; Respondent: M Malatsi; Respondent: B Ngema; Respondent: D Vilakazi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2015
Case Number
18064/2012
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Contempt of Court Application Following Grant of Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Legodi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interdict, Affidavit Evidence, Rule 6 Applications
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Interdict Affidavit Evidence Rule 6 Applications

Source-derived case record

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kempton Park Taxi Association

Applicant

E M Masinga

Applicant

P P Loliwe

Applicant

M N Thoobe

Applicant

M T E Mkhonto

Applicant

T A Majosi

Applicant

M J Ndawonde

Applicant

T V Thwala

Applicant

F J Mdaka

Respondent

M J Modupo

Respondent

M Malatsi

Respondent

B Ngema

Respondent

D Vilakazi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Contempt of Court Application Following Grant of Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the court order granted on 6 September 2012.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents continued to collect monies from members of the first applicant in contravention of the order.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent continued to act as chairperson of the first applicant contrary to the order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish contempt of the court order on two grounds. First, the evidence of continued collection of monies from members of the first applicant was insufficient and procedurally defective, as crucial supporting documents and affidavits were introduced for the first time in the replying affidavit, contrary to established procedural rules. The court refused to admit this evidence, finding it prejudicial to the respondents. Second, the alleged admission by the first respondent of acting as chairperson of the first applicant was not unequivocal and, when read in context with the history of the dispute and the respondents' affidavits, did not...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application for contempt of court is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of suit.