Malesa N.O and Others v Malebati and Others (641/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 15 (14 February 2025)

Malesa N.O and Others v Malebati and Others (641/2025) [2025] ZALMPPHC 15 (14 February 2025)

The court found that while the respondents attended the meeting at the community hall, their explanation that the meeting was convened at the instance of the Municipality for purposes of an eviction investigation created reasonable doubt as to their wilfulness and malice. The contradictory statements of Mr Raphesu, who initially confirmed the Municipality's arrangement and later retracted, further undermined the applicants' case. The court held that the respondents did not possess the necessary animus to disobey the order and that emotional responses from individuals facing eviction are understandable. As the respondents' conduct was not proven to be wilful or malicious beyond reasonable...

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 15
Parties
Applicant: Mashebane Daniel Malesa NO; Applicant: Joseph Kamela Modiba NO; Applicant: Mothoka Terrence Mosibihla NO; Applicant: Thetele Joseph Malatji NO; Applicant: Mankuroane Samuel Modiba NO; Applicant: Motlatso Ivy Magoele NO; Applicant: Maatishi Simon Makgoba NO; Applicant: Mogowe Windsor Madia NO; Applicant: Mokgadi Onica Makgobola NO; Applicant: Mmamokotla Monica Matlebjane NO; Applicant: Refilwe Irene Letsoalo NO; Applicant: Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo NO; Applicant: Matome David Modiba NO; Applicant: Mohale Elias Nyakala NO; Applicant: Matlou Jacqueline Makgoba NO; Respondent: Tshepo Malebati; Respondent: Bettie Makgoba; Respondent: Ennie Makgoba; Respondent: Marothi Makgoba; Respondent: Jimmy Kubyana; Respondent: Rebecca Mafa; Respondent: Botha Rapatsa
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2025
Case Number
641/2025
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Uplift Suspended Sentence for Contempt
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Makoti
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Urgent Interdict, Rule 6 12 B, Eviction Proceedings
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Urgent Interdict Rule 6 12 B Eviction Proceedings

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mashebane Daniel Malesa NO

Applicant

Joseph Kamela Modiba NO

Applicant

Mothoka Terrence Mosibihla NO

Applicant

Thetele Joseph Malatji NO

Applicant

Mankuroane Samuel Modiba NO

Applicant

Motlatso Ivy Magoele NO

Applicant

Maatishi Simon Makgoba NO

Applicant

Mogowe Windsor Madia NO

Applicant

Mokgadi Onica Makgobola NO

Applicant

Mmamokotla Monica Matlebjane NO

Applicant

Refilwe Irene Letsoalo NO

Applicant

Motlokwa Suzan Mojapelo NO

Applicant

Matome David Modiba NO

Applicant

Mohale Elias Nyakala NO

Applicant

Matlou Jacqueline Makgoba NO

Applicant

Tshepo Malebati

Respondent

Bettie Makgoba

Respondent

Ennie Makgoba

Respondent

Marothi Makgoba

Respondent

Jimmy Kubyana

Respondent

Rebecca Mafa

Respondent

Botha Rapatsa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Uplift Suspended Sentence for Contempt

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents' attendance at the community hall meeting constituted contempt of the court order of 26 March 2024.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents acted with wilful and malicious intent in breaching the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the suspended sentence of imprisonment should be uplifted and enforced.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the respondents attended the meeting at the community hall, their explanation that the meeting was convened at the instance of the Municipality for purposes of an eviction investigation created reasonable doubt as to their wilfulness and malice. The contradictory statements of Mr Raphesu, who initially confirmed the Municipality's arrangement and later retracted, further undermined the applicants' case. The court held that the respondents did not possess the necessary animus to disobey the order and that emotional responses from individuals facing eviction are understandable. As the respondents' conduct was not proven to be wilful or malicious beyond reasonable...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.