Ndlovu v Mangosuthu University of Technology and Another (8781/10) [2011] ZAKZDHC 46 (27 October 2011)

Ndlovu v Mangosuthu University of Technology and Another (8781/10) [2011] ZAKZDHC 46 (27 October 2011)

The court found that while the first respondent completed the Z102 form using salary scales it believed were correct, there was no evidence that the parties had agreed on which salary figures would be used when the consent order was made. The applicant failed to establish that the first respondent's actions were wilful or mala fide, or that there was a deliberate intention to frustrate the court order. The disputes regarding service and compliance dates were immaterial, as the order had come to the attention of the first respondent and any delay did not prejudice the applicant. The lack of clarity in the consent order and the existence of a pending action regarding salary overpayments...

Citation
[2011] ZAKZDHC 46
Parties
Applicant: A M Ndlovu; Respondent: Mangosuthu University of Technology; Respondent: Government Employees Pension Fund
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2011
Case Number
8781/10
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.
Judges
Lopes
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Compliance With Court Orders, Pension Benefits, Consent Order
Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Compliance With Court Orders Pension Benefits Consent Order

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 5
Sign in to unlock

Parties

A M Ndlovu

Applicant

Mangosuthu University of Technology

Respondent

Government Employees Pension Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first respondent and its employees were in contempt of court for failing to comply with the consent order of 7 December 2010.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's completion of the Z102 form using disputed salary scales constituted non-compliance with the court order.
  3. 3 Whether the actions of the first respondent were wilful and mala fide.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the first respondent completed the Z102 form using salary scales it believed were correct, there was no evidence that the parties had agreed on which salary figures would be used when the consent order was made. The applicant failed to establish that the first respondent's actions were wilful or mala fide, or that there was a deliberate intention to frustrate the court order. The disputes regarding service and compliance dates were immaterial, as the order had come to the attention of the first respondent and any delay did not prejudice the applicant. The lack of clarity in the consent order and the existence of a pending action regarding salary overpayments...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Each party to bear their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay their own costs in the contempt application, including the costs of the Application to Strike Out, the Notice of Irregular Proceedings in terms of Rules 30, and the reserved costs of the previous hearing.