Steenkamp and Another v Du Preez (Leave to Appeal) (388/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 99 (4 October 2024)

Steenkamp and Another v Du Preez (Leave to Appeal) (388/2024) [2024] ZANCHC 99 (4 October 2024)

The court found that the anti-dissipation order granted on 23 February 2024 was interlocutory and not final in effect, thus not appealable under section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The respondents failed to bring an application to suspend the operation of the order and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Their conduct in disregarding the order, despite clear judicial pronouncement of its interim nature, was found to be willful and mala fide. The respondents did not discharge their evidential burden to disturb the conclusion of contempt. There were no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal in either the main or contempt...

Citation
[2024] ZANCHC 99
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Steenkamp; Applicant: Jebeko Farming CC; Respondent: Sanetta Hendrietta Du Preez
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 October 2024
Case Number
388/2024
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Main and Contempt Orders
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused in respect of both the main and contempt orders. Costs awarded on an attorney and client scale against the applicants, jointly and severally.
Judges
Tyuthuza
Legal Topics
Leave to Appeal, Anti Dissipation Order, Contempt of Court, Interim Interdict, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Family and Children Leave to Appeal Anti Dissipation Order Contempt of Court Interim Interdict 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 6 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Steenkamp

Applicant

Jebeko Farming CC

Applicant

Sanetta Hendrietta Du Preez

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Against Main and Contempt Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim anti-dissipation order granted on 23 February 2024 is appealable as a final judgment.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct constituted willful and mala fide contempt of court regarding the interim order.
  3. 3 Whether leave to appeal should be granted in respect of both the main and contempt applications.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the anti-dissipation order granted on 23 February 2024 was interlocutory and not final in effect, thus not appealable under section 18(1) of the Superior Courts Act. The respondents failed to bring an application to suspend the operation of the order and did not demonstrate exceptional circumstances. Their conduct in disregarding the order, despite clear judicial pronouncement of its interim nature, was found to be willful and mala fide. The respondents did not discharge their evidential burden to disturb the conclusion of contempt. There were no reasonable prospects of success or compelling reasons for granting leave to appeal in either the main or contempt...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused in respect of both the main and contempt orders. Costs awarded on an attorney and client scale against the applicants, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal against the order granted on 23 February 2024 is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved pro tanto on an attorney and client scale, in respect of the application for leave to appeal against the 23 February 2024 order.