Magubane and Another v Beukes and Another (LCC126B/2014) [2017] ZALCC 18 (26 October 2017)

Magubane and Another v Beukes and Another (LCC126B/2014) [2017] ZALCC 18 (26 October 2017)

The applicants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondents did not comply with the court order regarding the return of cattle. There were material discrepancies in the applicants' evidence concerning the number of cattle removed and returned, and the sheriff's count matched the number of cattle present. The court found no evidence of non-compliance and therefore did not need to consider willfulness or mala fides. The application for contempt was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made, consistent with the court's usual practice.

Citation
[2017] ZALCC 18
Parties
Applicant: July Joseph Magubane; Applicant: Gweje Khumalo; Respondent: Lodewyk Johannes Beukes; Respondent: Twin City Developers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Wetlands Country Retreat (Pty) Ltd
Court
Land Claims Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 October 2017
Case Number
LCC 126B/2014
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
T M Ncube
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Restoration of Possession, Interim Orders, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Restoration of Possession Interim Orders Costs Award

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 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

July Joseph Magubane

Applicant

Gweje Khumalo

Applicant

Lodewyk Johannes Beukes

Respondent

Twin City Developers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Wetlands Country Retreat (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents failed to comply with the court order by not returning all cattle to the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct constituted contempt of court.
  3. 3 Whether costs should be awarded against the applicants or their legal representatives.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to prove on a balance of probabilities that the respondents did not comply with the court order regarding the return of cattle. There were material discrepancies in the applicants' evidence concerning the number of cattle removed and returned, and the sheriff's count matched the number of cattle present. The court found no evidence of non-compliance and therefore did not need to consider willfulness or mala fides. The application for contempt was dismissed, and no order as to costs was made, consistent with the court's usual practice.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There is no order as to costs.