Khepeng and Another v Maseko and Another (4777/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 78 (13 March 2023)

Khepeng and Another v Maseko and Another (4777/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 78 (13 March 2023)

The court found that the respondents were aware of the order prohibiting them from hosting public events at the property and from using the second applicant's name for such events. Despite this, they hosted the event on 1 October 2022 and continued similar activities, failing to retract promotional material as ordered. The distinction drawn by the respondents between 'public' and 'private' events was rejected, as the context and description of the events in the application and supporting Facebook posts made it clear that the events were of a public nature and fell within the scope of the interdicted conduct. The respondents' conduct was found to be wilful and mala fide, satisfying the...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 78
Parties
Applicant: Teboho Clement Khepeng; Applicant: House Phola (Pty) Ltd t/a House Pola Lounge; Respondent: Bonga Paul Maseko; Respondent: Jappy Jacob Masangani
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 March 2023
Case Number
4777/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt Application Following Urgent Interdict
Outcome
Application granted. Respondents declared in contempt of court and fined, with payment suspended on condition of compliance.
Judges
Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Urgent Interdict, Lease Dispute, Interpretation of Court Orders
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Urgent Interdict Lease Dispute Interpretation of Court Orders

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 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Teboho Clement Khepeng

Applicant

House Phola (Pty) Ltd t/a House Pola Lounge

Applicant

Bonga Paul Maseko

Respondent

Jappy Jacob Masangani

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt Application Following Urgent Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents were in contempt of the court order granted on 30 September 2022.
  2. 2 Whether the events hosted by the respondents constituted 'public events' prohibited by the order.
  3. 3 Whether the application was urgent and justified to be heard as such.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents were aware of the order prohibiting them from hosting public events at the property and from using the second applicant's name for such events. Despite this, they hosted the event on 1 October 2022 and continued similar activities, failing to retract promotional material as ordered. The distinction drawn by the respondents between 'public' and 'private' events was rejected, as the context and description of the events in the application and supporting Facebook posts made it clear that the events were of a public nature and fell within the scope of the interdicted conduct. The respondents' conduct was found to be wilful and mala fide, satisfying the...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondents declared in contempt of court and fined, with payment suspended on condition of compliance.

Orders

  • Condonation granted for non-compliance with rules; matter heard as urgent.
  • Respondents declared to be in contempt of the order granted on 30 September 2022.