Mmatau and Others v Ga-Rankuwa United Taxi Association (85186/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 293 (13 April 2021)
The application was dismissed because the court order in question did not require the respondent to deliver audited financial reports. The applicants' assumption that such a requirement existed was unfounded. The application was found to be entirely lacking in substance and amounted to an abuse of process. The...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2021] ZAGPPHC 293
- Parties
- Applicant: Matome Mmatau; Applicant: Thabo Matlou; Applicant: Marcelino Matola; Applicant: Benny Ndlovu; Applicant: Raymond Masango; Applicant: Thapelo Mokgatle; Respondent: Ga-Rankuwa United Taxi Association
- Court
- North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Judgment Date
- 13 April 2021
- Case Number
- 85186/19
- Procedural Posture
- Contempt Application / Judgment
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
- Judges
- LI Vorster
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Costs Order, Abuse of Process
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Matome Mmatau
Applicant
Thabo Matlou
Applicant
Marcelino Matola
Applicant
Benny Ndlovu
Applicant
Raymond Masango
Applicant
Thapelo Mokgatle
Applicant
Ga-Rankuwa United Taxi Association
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Judgment
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court order granted on 25 November 2019.
- 2 Whether the respondent was required to deliver audited financial reports under the court order.
- 3 Whether the application constitutes an abuse of process.
Ratio Decidendi
The application was dismissed because the court order in question did not require the respondent to deliver audited financial reports. The applicants' assumption that such a requirement existed was unfounded. The application was found to be entirely lacking in substance and amounted to an abuse of process. The respondent's request for a punitive costs order was justified in the circumstances.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs on the attorney and client scale.
Orders
- The application is dismissed.
- The applicants are ordered to pay the respondent's costs on the attorney and client scale.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
32 paragraphs
In the High Court of South Africa
Gauteng Local Division Pretoria.
Case no. 85186/19
Matome Mmatau 1st Applicant
Thabo Matlou 2nd Applicant
Marcelino Matola 3rd Applicant
Benny Ndlovu 4th Applicant
Raymond Masango
5th Applicant
Thapelo Mokgatle
6th Applicant
And
Ga-Rankuwa United Taxi Association
Respondent
Judgment.
LI Vorster AJ :
1. The Applicants apply for an order in the following terms :-
1. That the Respondent be found guilty of being in contempt of a Court order granted 25 November 2019:
2 That the Respondent be directed to purge such contempt within 48 hours Of this order;
3 Should Respondent fail to purge such contempt that the Respondent be committed to prison alternatively to payment of a fine;
4That an independent auditor be appointed to audit all books and accounts of Respondent and provide an audited financial report within 30 days or any further period allowed by the court
5. That the Respondent pays the costs of the Applicant on the scale of attorney and client.
2. The Respondent opposes the relief sought by Applicant and asks for dismissal of the application with costs on a scale of attorney and client.
3. Before I deal with the merits of the application I must say something about the pray4r seeking to commit the Respondent to jail. The Applicants all make much of the fact that they are esteemed members of the Respondent Are they opting to go to jail? If not who must go to jail? I mention this because the formulation of the application and the founding affidavit gives rise to the inference that very little if any thought went into the planning of this application
4. The Applicants allege that the Respondent committed contempt by violating a court order. The court order in question was made by agreement between the parties during 1919 when the Respondent approached the court on an urgent basis claiming interdictory relief against the applicants. By agreement an order was made inter alia compelling the executive committee of Respondent to file their reports dealing with thwir terms of service on 28 February 2020.
5. There is no mention of audited reports in the court order. It follows that the allegation based on failure to deliver audited reports is based on a faulty assumption that the court order compelled the delivery of audited reports.
6. There is no substance in the application, The Respondents asked for a punitive costs order. In my view that request is justified. The application is so devoid of substance that it smacks of abuse of process.
In the premises of the aforegoing I make the following order: and
The application is dismissed with costs on the scale of attorney and client.
LI Vorster AJ
13/4/21
Counsel: For Respondents Attorney A. Viakazi.