Graduate Institute of Financial Sciences (Pty) Ltd v Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority (134433/2023) [2024] ZAGPJHC 118 (13 February 2024)
The court held that the application for contempt of court was not suitable for urgent proceedings, as the issues required careful consideration incompatible with the urgent court. The existence of an application for leave to appeal and the interim nature of the order meant that the respondent's conduct could not be...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2024] ZAGPJHC 118
- Parties
- Applicant: Graduate Institute of Financial Sciences (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 134433/2023
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order on Urgent Basis
- Outcome
- Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.
- Judges
- Wepener
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Urgency, Interim Orders, Leave to Appeal
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Graduate Institute of Financial Sciences (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Insurance Sector Education and Training Authority
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Contempt of Court Order on Urgent Basis
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application for contempt of court should be heard on an urgent basis.
- 2 Whether the respondent is in wilful contempt of the court order given the pending application for leave to appeal.
- 3 Whether the interim nature of the order affects its suspension pending appeal.
Ratio Decidendi
The court held that the application for contempt of court was not suitable for urgent proceedings, as the issues required careful consideration incompatible with the urgent court. The existence of an application for leave to appeal and the interim nature of the order meant that the respondent's conduct could not be classified as wilful contempt. The matter was therefore not urgent and should not be determined in the urgent court.
Court Disposition
Application removed from the roll; costs awarded against the applicant.
Orders
- The matter is removed from the roll.
- The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
29 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 134433/2023
DATE: 16-01-2024
In the matter between
GRADUATE INSTITUTE OF FINANCIAL
SCIENCES (PTY) LTD
Plaintiff
and
INSURANCE SECTOR EDUCATION AND
TRAINING AUTHORITY
Defendant
JUDGMENT
WEPENER, J: This is an application filed by the applicant to declare the first respondent in contempt of court on an urgent basis in the urgent court. The question is whether this matter should be brought in the urgent court and on an urgent basis.
Despite the reservations that I had that the relief sought would have little effect, counsel for the applicant relied on the nature of the matter to classify it as an urgent matter which should be heard out of turn. But I agree with what Wilson J said in Volvo Financial Services South Africa v Adamos Thlokoze Trading CC, 2023 SAGP JHC 846 at paragraph 4:
“Urgency is determined not by the nature of the claim brought, but by the circumstances in which the applicant seeks its adjudication.”
It is common cause that the respondent filed a notice of application for leave to appeal the order which it is alleged to be in contempt of. The applicant relies on the fact that the order is temporary only and is thus is not suspended due to the application for leave appeal. Two issues follow. Firstly, as Sutherland DJP said in KMR v KR, 2021 ZAGP JHC 35 at paragraph 14:
“In general, the attribute of finality which may attach itself to (a) supposedly interim order is, of course, not to be equated with an order which is literally irreversible. The point in issue is the effect, not the form.”
I do not believe that it is incumbent upon the urgent court to determine the issue in this case as it requires careful consideration
which is incompatible with urgent proceedings.
Secondly, even if it can be said that the order is not final in effect and I make no finding, the Constitutional Court held that:
“It can hardly be said that the party who is of the view that the order is indeed appealable and gives notices that he so seeking leave to appeal the order, is acting in wilful contempt of the court order.”
See JLM v WKM, 2023 ZAGPHC 41 at paragraph 10.
In these circumstances it is not proper to attempt to determine the question of contempt of the court order in these urgent proceedings.
The matter is removed from the roll and the applicant is ordered to pay the costs of these proceedings.
…………………………
WEPENER, J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
DATE: ……………….