Mkhabela v Bothma and Others (2016/48410) [2017] ZAGPPHC 924 (14 December 2017)

Mkhabela v Bothma and Others (2016/48410) [2017] ZAGPPHC 924 (14 December 2017)

The court found that the applicant had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the first and second respondents were in contempt of the court order dated 26 May 2016. The respondents' explanation regarding the loan to Brakspruit Boerdery Trust was rejected as highly improbable and lacking any credible evidence or details. The court concluded that the trust was under the control of the first respondent and that the respondents' conduct was wilful and mala fide. The respondents failed to pay the proceeds of the Road Accident Fund claim to the applicant's attorneys of record as required by the court order. Accordingly, the court held the respondents in contempt and imposed suspended...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 924
Parties
Applicant: Timothy Mkhabela; Respondent: Hermanus Johannes Wessels Bothma; Respondent: Bothma Incorporated; Respondent: The Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 December 2017
Case Number
2016/48410
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Opposed Motion for Contempt Order Following Alleged Non Compliance With Previous Court Order
Outcome
Application granted. The first and second respondents are declared to be in contempt of court for failing to pay the proceeds of the Road Accident Fund claim to the applicant's attorneys of record.
Judges
L Adams
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Road Accident Fund Claims, Attorney Trust Accounts
Civil Procedure Civil Contempt of Court Enforcement of Court Orders Road Accident Fund Claims Attorney Trust Accounts

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 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Timothy Mkhabela

Applicant

Hermanus Johannes Wessels Bothma

Respondent

Bothma Incorporated

Respondent

The Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Opposed Motion for Contempt Order Following Alleged Non Compliance With Previous Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents are in contempt of the court order dated 26 May 2016 by failing to pay the proceeds of the Road Accident Fund claim to the applicant's attorneys of record.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct was wilful and mala fide, thus constituting contempt of court.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' explanation regarding the loan to Brakspruit Boerdery Trust is credible and sufficient to rebut contempt.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had proven, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the first and second respondents were in contempt of the court order dated 26 May 2016. The respondents' explanation regarding the loan to Brakspruit Boerdery Trust was rejected as highly improbable and lacking any credible evidence or details. The court concluded that the trust was under the control of the first respondent and that the respondents' conduct was wilful and mala fide. The respondents failed to pay the proceeds of the Road Accident Fund claim to the applicant's attorneys of record as required by the court order. Accordingly, the court held the respondents in contempt and imposed suspended...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The first and second respondents are declared to be in contempt of court for failing to pay the proceeds of the Road Accident Fund claim to the applicant's attorneys of record.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are held to be in contempt of the Court Order granted on 26 May 2016 under case number 93401/2015, for failing to pay R798,808.62 into the trust account of the applicant's attorneys of record.
  • The first respondent is committed to imprisonment for one month for contempt of court, suspended on condition that both respondents comply fully with clause (4) of the Court Order within six weeks from the date of this order.