Morake v Karstens and Another (1173/2020) [2022] ZANCHC 27 (9 May 2022)

Morake v Karstens and Another (1173/2020) [2022] ZANCHC 27 (9 May 2022)

The court found that the First Respondent, Marcel Karstens, failed to comply with the court order of 19 June 2020, which required him to provide specified company information and documentation within ten days. The respondent's explanations for non-compliance, including delays caused by his accountant and the Covid pandemic, were found to be insufficient and lacking in credibility. The respondent did not take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, nor did he provide evidence to establish a reasonable doubt that his non-compliance was not wilful and in bad faith. The court concluded that the requirements for contempt of court were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The appropriate sanction...

Citation
[2022] ZANCHC 27
Parties
Applicant: Molefe P Morake; Respondent: Marcel Karstens; Respondent: Multitech Africa (Pty) Ltd
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 May 2022
Case Number
1173/2020
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The First Respondent is found to be in contempt of the court order granted on 19 June 2020. He is committed to imprisonment for thirty days, suspended for forty-five days on condition of compliance with the original order. Costs are awarded against the First Respondent on the attorney and client scale.
Judges
A Eillert
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Director Duties, Compliance With Court Orders, Sanctions for Non Compliance
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Director Duties Compliance With Court Orders Sanctions for Non Compliance

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Molefe P Morake

Applicant

Marcel Karstens

Respondent

Multitech Africa (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the First Respondent, Marcel Karstens, acted wilfully and in bad faith in failing to comply with the court order dated 19 June 2020.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for contempt of court have been satisfied beyond reasonable doubt.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate sanction for the contempt established.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the First Respondent, Marcel Karstens, failed to comply with the court order of 19 June 2020, which required him to provide specified company information and documentation within ten days. The respondent's explanations for non-compliance, including delays caused by his accountant and the Covid pandemic, were found to be insufficient and lacking in credibility. The respondent did not take reasonable steps to ensure compliance, nor did he provide evidence to establish a reasonable doubt that his non-compliance was not wilful and in bad faith. The court concluded that the requirements for contempt of court were satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. The appropriate sanction...

Court Disposition

The First Respondent is found to be in contempt of the court order granted on 19 June 2020. He is committed to imprisonment for thirty days, suspended for forty-five days on condition of compliance with the original order. Costs are awarded against the First Respondent on the attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The First Respondent is held in contempt of the court order granted by this Court under case number 208/2020 on 19 June 2020.
  • The First Respondent is committed to imprisonment of thirty days.