Stofile v Mvulane and Others (44641/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 426 (12 June 2018)

Stofile v Mvulane and Others (44641/2016) [2018] ZAGPJHC 426 (12 June 2018)

The applicant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents wilfully and in bad faith disobeyed the court orders regarding contact with the children. The evidence presented, including the applicant's own version, does not establish deliberate or mala fide conduct by the respondents. The difficulties...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 426
Parties
Applicant: Andile Lunga Stofile; Respondent: Nomathamsaqa Mvulane; Respondent: Rosemary Mvulane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 June 2018
Case Number
44641/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
S Yacoob
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Parenting Plan, Child Contact, Enforcement of Court Orders
Family and Children Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Parenting Plan Child Contact Enforcement of Court Orders

Source-derived case record

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 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Andile Lunga Stofile

Applicant

Nomathamsaqa Mvulane

Respondent

Rosemary Mvulane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents wilfully and in bad faith disobeyed the court orders regarding the applicant's contact with his minor children.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' conduct amounts to contempt of court.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has proved contempt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondents wilfully and in bad faith disobeyed the court orders regarding contact with the children. The evidence presented, including the applicant's own version, does not establish deliberate or mala fide conduct by the respondents. The difficulties in contact and the children's reluctance to travel with the applicant are not sufficient to infer contempt. The court finds reasonable doubt as to the respondents' intention and rejects the application for contempt.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.