Motshele v Motshele (32777/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 274 (17 March 2025)

Motshele v Motshele (32777/2017) [2025] ZAGPPHC 274 (17 March 2025)

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent's conduct was deliberate and contemptuous. While the respondent did not comply with the court order dated 11 October 2023, the evidence does not establish wilful or mala fide non-compliance. The prejudice and delay suffered by the applicant, though acknowledged, do not meet the threshold required for the drastic remedy of striking out the respondent's claim and defence. The court finds that striking out is not justified in this case, and the application is dismissed. However, the respondent's conduct warrants a costs order in favour of the applicant to compensate for the prejudice caused.

Citation
[2025] ZAGPPHC 274
Parties
Applicant: Violet Maletjema Motshele; Respondent: Sipho Samuel Sefore Motshele
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 March 2025
Case Number
32777/2017
Procedural Posture
Strike Out Application / Application for Strike Out of Respondent's Claim and Defence to Counter Claim for Non Compliance With Court Order
Outcome
Application to strike out respondent's claim and defence to the counter-claim is dismissed. Costs awarded to applicant on attorney and client scale.
Judges
E Joyini
Legal Topics
Strike Out Application, Rule 30a, Contempt of Court, Prejudice, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Strike Out Application Rule 30a Contempt of Court Prejudice Costs Award

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 6 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Violet Maletjema Motshele

Applicant

Sipho Samuel Sefore Motshele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Strike Out Application / Application for Strike Out of Respondent's Claim and Defence to Counter Claim for Non Compliance With Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's claim and defence to the counter-claim should be struck out for failure to comply with the court order dated 11 October 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct amounts to contempt of court justifying a strike out.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has suffered sufficient prejudice to warrant the relief sought.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove that the respondent's conduct was deliberate and contemptuous. While the respondent did not comply with the court order dated 11 October 2023, the evidence does not establish wilful or mala fide non-compliance. The prejudice and delay suffered by the applicant, though acknowledged, do not meet the threshold required for the drastic remedy of striking out the respondent's claim and defence. The court finds that striking out is not justified in this case, and the application is dismissed. However, the respondent's conduct warrants a costs order in favour of the applicant to compensate for the prejudice caused.

Court Disposition

Application to strike out respondent's claim and defence to the counter-claim is dismissed. Costs awarded to applicant on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The application to strike out the respondent’s claim and defence to the counter-claim for failure to comply with the court order dated 11 October 2023 is not granted.
  • The respondent shall pay the costs of this application on an attorney and client scale.