Plaintiffs Listed in Annexure "RAF 1" and Another v Road Accident Fund and Another (20784/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 672 (13 September 2022)

Plaintiffs Listed in Annexure "RAF 1" and Another v Road Accident Fund and Another (20784/2022) [2022] ZAGPPHC 672 (13 September 2022)

The court held that the primary relief sought by the applicants was the enforcement of payment of money orders (ad pecuniam solvendam) through contempt proceedings. South African law, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal, does not permit contempt of court proceedings to enforce payment of money judgments, except in maintenance matters. The application was therefore fundamentally flawed. Additionally, the court found no urgency in the matter, as urgency was neither alleged nor established for the enforcement of the money order. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs, including costs for two counsel where applicable.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 672
Parties
Applicant: Plaintiffs Listed in Annexure "RAF 1"; Applicant: K Malao Incorporated; Respondent: Road Accident Fund; Respondent: Collins Letsoalo: Chief Executive Officer of the Road Accident Fund
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2022
Case Number
20784/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief and Contempt Order
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where applicable.
Judges
C J van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Money Judgment Enforcement, Urgency, Costs Orders
Civil Procedure Civil Contempt Money Judgment Enforcement Urgency Costs Orders

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Plaintiffs Listed in Annexure "RAF 1"

Applicant

K Malao Incorporated

Applicant

Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Collins Letsoalo: Chief Executive Officer of the Road Accident Fund

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief and Contempt Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether applicants are entitled to seek a contempt of court finding to enforce payment of money orders.
  2. 2 Whether the application for contempt is appropriate in the context of enforcing ad pecuniam solvendam orders.
  3. 3 Whether urgency was established for the hearing of the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the primary relief sought by the applicants was the enforcement of payment of money orders (ad pecuniam solvendam) through contempt proceedings. South African law, as confirmed by the Constitutional Court and Supreme Court of Appeal, does not permit contempt of court proceedings to enforce payment of money judgments, except in maintenance matters. The application was therefore fundamentally flawed. Additionally, the court found no urgency in the matter, as urgency was neither alleged nor established for the enforcement of the money order. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs, including costs for two counsel where applicable.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel where applicable.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are to pay the costs, the one paying the other to be absolved, such costs to include the costs consequent on the employment of two counsel where applicable.