Nel N.O. v Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated and Others (86454/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1127 (7 December 2016)

Nel N.O. v Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated and Others (86454/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 1127 (7 December 2016)

The court found that the first and second respondents were in contempt of paragraph 4 of Molahlehi AJ's order, as they failed to pay the funds held on behalf of Ms Jumbe into the trust account of Weavind and Weavind Attorneys within the specified period. The order was interlocutory and not suspended by the mere lodging of an application for leave to appeal. The respondents' retention of the funds was unjustified following termination of their mandate. In the interests of justice and pending the Law Society's investigation, the court ordered that the funds be paid into a separate interest-bearing account and frozen. The court imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment on the second...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 1127
Parties
Applicant: Adv P Nel N.O.; Respondent: Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated; Respondent: Mandla Macbeth Ncongwane; Respondent: Bongani Matsane; Respondent: Sibongile Muwanba Chimimba; Respondent: Friday Jumbe; Respondent: Law Society of the Northern Provinces
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2016
Case Number
86454/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt and Interlocutory Relief Following Non Compliance With Prior Court Order
Outcome
Application granted in part; first and second respondents found in contempt; suspended imprisonment imposed; costs awarded against first and second respondents; counter-application struck off the roll.
Judges
Tlhapi V V
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Interlocutory Orders, Trust Account Management, Attorney Client Mandate, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Land and Property Contempt of Court Interlocutory Orders Trust Account Management Attorney Client Mandate 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Adv P Nel N.O.

Applicant

Macbeth Attorneys Incorporated

Respondent

Mandla Macbeth Ncongwane

Respondent

Bongani Matsane

Respondent

Sibongile Muwanba Chimimba

Respondent

Friday Jumbe

Respondent

Law Society of the Northern Provinces

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt and Interlocutory Relief Following Non Compliance With Prior Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether paragraph 4 of the order made by Molahlehi AJ on 21 November 2016 is interlocutory and not suspended by an application for leave to appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the first and second respondents are in contempt of the court order dated 21 November 2016.
  3. 3 What sanctions are appropriate for the contempt found.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first and second respondents were in contempt of paragraph 4 of Molahlehi AJ's order, as they failed to pay the funds held on behalf of Ms Jumbe into the trust account of Weavind and Weavind Attorneys within the specified period. The order was interlocutory and not suspended by the mere lodging of an application for leave to appeal. The respondents' retention of the funds was unjustified following termination of their mandate. In the interests of justice and pending the Law Society's investigation, the court ordered that the funds be paid into a separate interest-bearing account and frozen. The court imposed a suspended sentence of imprisonment on the second...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; first and second respondents found in contempt; suspended imprisonment imposed; costs awarded against first and second respondents; counter-application struck off the roll.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are found to be in contempt of court.
  • The second respondent is committed to prison for a period of 30 days, suspended for six months from the date of this order, and must show cause why the order should not be made final.