Saaiman N.O and Others v Saaiman and Others (53177/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 105 (19 February 2016)

Saaiman N.O and Others v Saaiman and Others (53177/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 105 (19 February 2016)

The court found that the respondents provided a sufficient answer to the allegations of contempt, confirming payment and explaining the handling of funds under oath. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged short payment of interest was not raised in the founding papers and constituted a new issue in the application for leave to appeal, which the court refused to entertain. The court applied the Plascon-Evans approach, adjudicating the matter on the respondents' version, as neither party requested referral to oral evidence. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find in favour...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 105
Parties
Applicant: Magdalena Aletta Saaiman NO; Applicant: Magdalena Aletta Engelbrecht NO; Applicant: Herculus Phillippus Saaiman NO; Applicant: Susanna Johanna Birkholt2 NO; Applicant: Nicolaas Jacobus Saaiman NO; Applicant: Madalena Aletta Saaiman; Respondent: Anette Elizabeth Saaiman; Respondent: Petrus Jakobus van Schalkwyk NO; Respondent: Anette Elizabeth Saaiman NO; Respondent: Master of the High Court, Pretoria
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 February 2016
Case Number
53177/13
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal
Outcome
Leave to appeal refused with costs.
Judges
Louw AJ
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Contempt of Court, Ad Factum Praestandum, Ad Pecuniam Solvendam, Rule 7 Uniform Rules, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Leave to Appeal Contempt of Court Ad Factum Praestandum Ad Pecuniam Solvendam Rule 7 Uniform Rules Costs 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Magdalena Aletta Saaiman NO

Applicant

Magdalena Aletta Engelbrecht NO

Applicant

Herculus Phillippus Saaiman NO

Applicant

Susanna Johanna Birkholt2 NO

Applicant

Nicolaas Jacobus Saaiman NO

Applicant

Madalena Aletta Saaiman

Applicant

Anette Elizabeth Saaiman

Respondent

Petrus Jakobus van Schalkwyk NO

Respondent

Anette Elizabeth Saaiman NO

Respondent

Master of the High Court, Pretoria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants discharged the onus to prove contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents provided a sufficient answer to the allegations of contempt.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should have been referred to oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents provided a sufficient answer to the allegations of contempt, confirming payment and explaining the handling of funds under oath. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged short payment of interest was not raised in the founding papers and constituted a new issue in the application for leave to appeal, which the court refused to entertain. The court applied the Plascon-Evans approach, adjudicating the matter on the respondents' version, as neither party requested referral to oral evidence. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect that another court would find in favour...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal refused with costs.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is refused.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.