K.J v O.A.J and Another (67591/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 126 (18 April 2019)

K.J v O.A.J and Another (67591/2013) [2019] ZAGPPHC 126 (18 April 2019)

The court found that the urgent order declaring the first respondent in contempt was granted in his absence and without proper opportunity to be heard, as he was out of the country and not adequately served. The applicant did not establish that the first respondent's non-compliance with the relevant orders was wilful or mala fide, given the existence of pending appeals and ongoing disputes regarding the validity and enforcement of the Rule 43 maintenance order. The court held that the procedure for reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) was properly invoked and that the urgent order should be set aside. The application for contempt and restoration of electricity supply was dismissed, as the...

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 126
Parties
Applicant: K.J; Respondent: O.A.J; Respondent: City of Tshwane Municipality
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 April 2019
Case Number
67591/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Urgent Contempt Order
Outcome
Application for contempt and restoration of electricity supply dismissed. Urgent order set aside. Costs awarded against applicant.
Judges
Makhuvele
Legal Topics
Rule 43 Interim Maintenance, Contempt of Court, Urgent Application Procedure, Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C
Family and Children Civil Procedure Rule 43 Interim Maintenance Contempt of Court Urgent Application Procedure Reconsideration Under Rule 6 12 C

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

K.J

Applicant

O.A.J

Respondent

City of Tshwane Municipality

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Reconsideration of Urgent Contempt Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent was in contempt of the court orders dated 15 May 2015, 24 May 2018, and 10 December 2018.
  2. 2 Whether the urgent order granted in the absence of the first respondent should be reconsidered and set aside.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant was entitled to restoration of electricity supply to the property.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the urgent order declaring the first respondent in contempt was granted in his absence and without proper opportunity to be heard, as he was out of the country and not adequately served. The applicant did not establish that the first respondent's non-compliance with the relevant orders was wilful or mala fide, given the existence of pending appeals and ongoing disputes regarding the validity and enforcement of the Rule 43 maintenance order. The court held that the procedure for reconsideration under Rule 6(12)(c) was properly invoked and that the urgent order should be set aside. The application for contempt and restoration of electricity supply was dismissed, as the...

Court Disposition

Application for contempt and restoration of electricity supply dismissed. Urgent order set aside. Costs awarded against applicant.

Orders

  • The order issued by Van Der Schyff AJ on 14 December 2018 is set aside in its entirety.
  • The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.