Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 472 (17 June 2016)

Tasima (Pty) Ltd v Department of Transport and Others (44095/2012) [2016] ZAGPPHC 472 (17 June 2016)

The court found that the obligation to pay the amount specified in paragraph 1.2 of the order was not contingent upon the opening of the escrow account. The respondents had the necessary information to calculate the amount due and were required to pay it by the stipulated deadline. The second respondent's conduct in delaying payment and raising the escrow account issue at the last minute was found to be wilful and mala fide. The evidence did not support any reasonable doubt as to the respondents' contempt. Accordingly, the first and second respondents were declared to be in breach and wilful contempt of the court order, and a punitive costs order was warranted.

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 472
Parties
Applicant: Tasima (Pty) Limited; Respondent: Department of Transport; Respondent: Director General: Department of Transport; Respondent: Minister of Transport; Respondent: Werner Eduard Koekemoer; Respondent: Road Traffic Corporation; Respondent: Collins Letsoalo; Respondent: Kevin Joshua Kara-vala; Respondent: Morne Gerber; Respondent: Gilberto Martins; Respondent: Chris Hlabisa; Respondent: Makhosinimsibi
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 June 2016
Case Number
44095/2012
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt and Costs Order Following Non Compliance With Previous Court Order
Outcome
The first and second respondents were declared to be in breach and wilful contempt of the court order dated 6 May 2016. A punitive costs order was granted against them.
Judges
Tuchten
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt, Enforcement of Court Orders, Punitive Costs, Escrow Payment Dispute
Civil Procedure Civil Contempt Enforcement of Court Orders Punitive Costs Escrow Payment Dispute

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

Parties

Tasima (Pty) Limited

Applicant

Department of Transport

Respondent

Director General: Department of Transport

Respondent

Minister of Transport

Respondent

Werner Eduard Koekemoer

Respondent

Road Traffic Corporation

Respondent

Collins Letsoalo

Respondent

Kevin Joshua Kara-vala

Respondent

Morne Gerber

Respondent

Gilberto Martins

Respondent

Chris Hlabisa

Respondent

Makhosinimsibi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Contempt and Costs Order Following Non Compliance With Previous Court Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the first and second respondents were in breach and wilful contempt of paragraph 1.2 of the court order dated 6 May 2016.
  2. 2 Whether payment under the order was contingent upon the opening of an escrow account.
  3. 3 Whether a punitive costs order should be granted against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the obligation to pay the amount specified in paragraph 1.2 of the order was not contingent upon the opening of the escrow account. The respondents had the necessary information to calculate the amount due and were required to pay it by the stipulated deadline. The second respondent's conduct in delaying payment and raising the escrow account issue at the last minute was found to be wilful and mala fide. The evidence did not support any reasonable doubt as to the respondents' contempt. Accordingly, the first and second respondents were declared to be in breach and wilful contempt of the court order, and a punitive costs order was warranted.

Court Disposition

The first and second respondents were declared to be in breach and wilful contempt of the court order dated 6 May 2016. A punitive costs order was granted against them.

Orders

  • The first and second respondents are declared to be in breach and wilful contempt of paragraph 1.2 of the order of Sasson J dated 6 May 2016.
  • The first and second respondents are ordered, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the costs of this application on the scale as between attorney and own client, including the costs consequent upon the employment of two counsel.