Makhubela v Molefi and Others (62586/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 172 (14 June 2013)

Makhubela v Molefi and Others (62586/2011) [2013] ZAGPPHC 172 (14 June 2013)

The court found that contempt proceedings were not appropriate for enforcing the payment of R1 million, as this was a money judgment and should be enforced by execution rather than contempt. The evidence did not support the First Respondent's claim that the Applicant was in arrears with maintenance payments, as proof of payments was provided. The First Respondent's application for variation of the settlement agreement was dismissed because none of the grounds under Rule 42 were established, and the issue of the pension fund had been previously addressed. The Registrar was authorised to issue a writ of execution for R1 million against the immovable property, and both parties' applications...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 172
Parties
Applicant: Lukas Mahlasela Makhubela; Respondent: Lynette Moretlo Molefi; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Station Commander, Midrand Police Station; Respondent: Minister of Correctional Services
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 June 2013
Case Number
62586/2011
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application and Counter Application for Contempt and Variation of Court Order
Outcome
Both the Applicant's and First Respondent's applications for contempt and variation are dismissed. The Registrar is authorised to issue a writ of execution for R1 million against the immovable property. Costs are awarded against the First Respondent.
Judges
Strijdom
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Variation of Settlement Agreement, Maintenance of Children, Writ of Execution
Civil Procedure Family and Children Contempt of Court Variation of Settlement Agreement Maintenance of Children Writ of Execution

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 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 8
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lukas Mahlasela Makhubela

Applicant

Lynette Moretlo Molefi

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Station Commander, Midrand Police Station

Respondent

Minister of Correctional Services

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application and Counter Application for Contempt and Variation of Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent is in contempt of the court order dated 28 November 2011.
  2. 2 Whether the Applicant is in arrears with maintenance payments for minor children.
  3. 3 Whether the settlement agreement and/or court order should be varied to include division of pension fund.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that contempt proceedings were not appropriate for enforcing the payment of R1 million, as this was a money judgment and should be enforced by execution rather than contempt. The evidence did not support the First Respondent's claim that the Applicant was in arrears with maintenance payments, as proof of payments was provided. The First Respondent's application for variation of the settlement agreement was dismissed because none of the grounds under Rule 42 were established, and the issue of the pension fund had been previously addressed. The Registrar was authorised to issue a writ of execution for R1 million against the immovable property, and both parties' applications...

Court Disposition

Both the Applicant's and First Respondent's applications for contempt and variation are dismissed. The Registrar is authorised to issue a writ of execution for R1 million against the immovable property. Costs are awarded against the First Respondent.

Orders

  • The Applicant's application to declare the First Respondent in contempt of court is dismissed.
  • The Registrar of the Court is authorised to issue a writ of execution in the sum of R1 million against the immovable property situated at No 7 Milnerton Street, Kyalami Estate.