Salie-Hlope v Samuels (5254/2013) [2021] ZAGPPHC 103 (2 March 2021)

Salie-Hlope v Samuels (5254/2013) [2021] ZAGPPHC 103 (2 March 2021)

The respondent was aware of the court order requiring payment of R138,413.90 to the applicant and failed to comply by the stipulated deadline. His explanations regarding the COVID pandemic and personal circumstances did not justify the non-compliance, as the breach occurred prior to the pandemic and no substantive evidence was provided to establish reasonable doubt as to wilfulness or mala fides. The respondent's actions, including the sale of assets and evasion of the sheriff, were found to be deliberate attempts to avoid enforcement of the order. The court dismissed the application for postponement and declared the respondent in contempt, ordering his committal to imprisonment for three...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPPHC 103
Parties
Applicant: Gayaat Salie-Hlophe; Respondent: Adrian John Samuels
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 March 2021
Case Number
5254/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Contempt Application Following Non Compliance With Previous Court Order
Outcome
The application for postponement is dismissed. The respondent is declared to be in contempt of court and is committed to three months' imprisonment. A warrant of arrest is to be issued, effective 15 days from the date of the order.
Judges
E.M Kubushi
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Maintenance Enforcement, Urgent Application, Arrear Maintenance
Civil Procedure Family and Children Civil Contempt Maintenance Enforcement Urgent Application Arrear Maintenance

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

Parties

Gayaat Salie-Hlophe

Applicant

Adrian John Samuels

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Contempt Application Following Non Compliance With Previous Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court order granted on 29 July 2013.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's failure to pay the ordered maintenance amount was wilful and mala fide.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's application for postponement should be granted.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was aware of the court order requiring payment of R138,413.90 to the applicant and failed to comply by the stipulated deadline. His explanations regarding the COVID pandemic and personal circumstances did not justify the non-compliance, as the breach occurred prior to the pandemic and no substantive evidence was provided to establish reasonable doubt as to wilfulness or mala fides. The respondent's actions, including the sale of assets and evasion of the sheriff, were found to be deliberate attempts to avoid enforcement of the order. The court dismissed the application for postponement and declared the respondent in contempt, ordering his committal to imprisonment for three...

Court Disposition

The application for postponement is dismissed. The respondent is declared to be in contempt of court and is committed to three months' imprisonment. A warrant of arrest is to be issued, effective 15 days from the date of the order.

Orders

  • The application for postponement is dismissed.
  • The respondent, Mr Adrian John Samuels, is declared to be in contempt of Justice Samela’s order of 29 July 2013.