Manamela v Maite (2023/055949) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1011 (6 September 2023)

Manamela v Maite (2023/055949) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1011 (6 September 2023)

The court found that the applicant's second urgent contempt application was improperly brought, as the matter had previously been struck from the urgent roll for lack of urgency and remained pending. The applicant failed to establish factual grounds for urgency, relying instead on the inherent nature of contempt proceedings, which is insufficient. The application was further tainted by procedural irregularities, including lack of proper service and disregard for prior judicial warnings. The conduct of the applicant's attorney, Mr Seloane, amounted to an abuse of process and a flagrant disregard for court rules and judicial authority. The court held that such conduct warranted a costs...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1011
Parties
Applicant: Merriam Makwena Manamela; Respondent: Grace Maite
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 September 2023
Case Number
2023/055949
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Second Urgent Contempt Application Following Prior Striking From the Roll; Application for Costs De Bonis Propriis
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded de bonis propriis against applicant's attorney; attorney disentitled from charging applicant fees.
Judges
EF Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Abuse of Process, Urgent Application Requirements, De Bonis Propriis Costs, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Abuse of Process Urgent Application Requirements De Bonis Propriis Costs Service of Process

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Merriam Makwena Manamela

Applicant

Grace Maite

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Second Urgent Contempt Application Following Prior Striking From the Roll; Application for Costs De Bonis Propriis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second urgent contempt application was properly brought before the court.
  2. 2 Whether the application constituted an abuse of process.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for urgency in contempt proceedings were satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant's second urgent contempt application was improperly brought, as the matter had previously been struck from the urgent roll for lack of urgency and remained pending. The applicant failed to establish factual grounds for urgency, relying instead on the inherent nature of contempt proceedings, which is insufficient. The application was further tainted by procedural irregularities, including lack of proper service and disregard for prior judicial warnings. The conduct of the applicant's attorney, Mr Seloane, amounted to an abuse of process and a flagrant disregard for court rules and judicial authority. The court held that such conduct warranted a costs...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded de bonis propriis against applicant's attorney; attorney disentitled from charging applicant fees.

Orders

  • The applicant’s urgent contempt application dated 20 July 2023 is dismissed.
  • The costs of the application, including reserved costs in the urgent court on 1 August 2023, are to be borne by the applicant’s attorney of record, Mr Vincent Seloane, de bonis propriis, on the scale as between attorney and client.