Wessels v De Jager t/a De Jager Boedery (J2692/07) [2009] ZALCJHB 112 (6 August 2009)

Wessels v De Jager t/a De Jager Boedery (J2692/07) [2009] ZALCJHB 112 (6 August 2009)

The court found that it had erred in issuing the previous order committing the respondent to prison without first affording him an opportunity to show cause. The principle of procedural fairness requires that a person facing committal for contempt must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court accordingly varied its earlier order, issuing a rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause on a specified return date why a final order of committal should not be granted. The court also clarified that the enforcement of its order regarding the IRP5 form is a matter for judicial enforcement, not for referral to the South African Revenue Services for prosecution under the...

Citation
[2009] ZALCJHB 112
Parties
Applicant: J M S Wessels; Respondent: J F De Jager t/a De Jager Boedery
Court
Labour Court Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2009
Case Number
J2692/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Variation of Contempt Order
Outcome
The previous order committing the respondent to prison is varied. A rule nisi is issued, and the matter is set down for further hearing.
Judges
Molahlehi
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Enforcement of Court Orders, Variation of Order
Labour Law Civil Procedure Contempt of Court Enforcement of Court Orders Variation of Order

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 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

J M S Wessels

Applicant

J F De Jager t/a De Jager Boedery

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Variation of Contempt Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent was afforded an opportunity to show cause before being committed to prison for contempt of court.
  2. 2 Whether the previous order committing the respondent to prison should be varied to comply with procedural fairness.
  3. 3 Whether the enforcement of the IRP5 delivery order should be referred to the South African Revenue Services or enforced by the court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that it had erred in issuing the previous order committing the respondent to prison without first affording him an opportunity to show cause. The principle of procedural fairness requires that a person facing committal for contempt must be given notice and an opportunity to be heard. The court accordingly varied its earlier order, issuing a rule nisi calling upon the respondent to show cause on a specified return date why a final order of committal should not be granted. The court also clarified that the enforcement of its order regarding the IRP5 form is a matter for judicial enforcement, not for referral to the South African Revenue Services for prosecution under the...

Court Disposition

The previous order committing the respondent to prison is varied. A rule nisi is issued, and the matter is set down for further hearing.

Orders

  • A rule nisi is issued calling upon the respondent to show cause on 21 August 2009 why a final order should not be granted holding him in contempt of court and committing him to prison for 15 days.
  • The respondent may be brought before the court earlier if he complies or tenders compliance with the order.