T.K.M obo N.W.C.M v Dr Raphahlelo and Others (1965/2023) [2023] ZALMPPHC 90 (29 September 2023)

T.K.M obo N.W.C.M v Dr Raphahlelo and Others (1965/2023) [2023] ZALMPPHC 90 (29 September 2023)

The court found that the applicant proved the existence of the court order and that the respondents were aware of it. However, the evidence, including WhatsApp communications and the attempted transmission of medical records, supported the respondents' contention that they did not willfully disobey the order. The applicant's attorneys acknowledged receipt of documents but requested them via email due to visibility issues. The court held that there was no willful or mala fide disobedience and that the respondents' conduct did not amount to contempt of court. The urgency of the application and condonation for late filing were granted, but the substantive relief was refused as the applicant...

Citation
[2023] ZALMPPHC 90
Parties
Applicant: T.K.M obo N.W.C.M; Respondent: Dr Matome Godfrey Raphahlelo; Respondent: Designated Information Officer (Dr Matome Godfrey Raphahlelo); Respondent: E[...] E[...] M[...]
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 September 2023
Case Number
1965/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order; Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.
Judges
M Kgatla
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Promotion of Access to Information Act, Urgency, Service of Process
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Contempt of Court Promotion of Access to Information Act Urgency Service of Process

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

Parties

T.K.M obo N.W.C.M

Applicant

Dr Matome Godfrey Raphahlelo

Respondent

Designated Information Officer (Dr Matome Godfrey Raphahlelo)

Respondent

E[...] E[...] M[...]

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order; Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents are in contempt of the court order granted on 25 July 2023.
  2. 2 Whether the application should be heard as urgent and non-compliance with rules condoned.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' late filing of answering affidavit should be condoned.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant proved the existence of the court order and that the respondents were aware of it. However, the evidence, including WhatsApp communications and the attempted transmission of medical records, supported the respondents' contention that they did not willfully disobey the order. The applicant's attorneys acknowledged receipt of documents but requested them via email due to visibility issues. The court held that there was no willful or mala fide disobedience and that the respondents' conduct did not amount to contempt of court. The urgency of the application and condonation for late filing were granted, but the substantive relief was refused as the applicant...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; costs awarded against the applicant.

Orders

  • The applicant's non-compliance with the rules relating to service and time is condoned and the application is dealt with as urgent.
  • The late filing of the respondents' answering affidavit is condoned.