Wessels v JF de Jager t/a de Jager Boerdery (J2692/07) [2009] ZALC 228 (6 August 2009)

Wessels v JF de Jager t/a de Jager Boerdery (J2692/07) [2009] ZALC 228 (6 August 2009)

The court found that the previous order committing the respondent to prison was issued in error, as the respondent was not given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be committed. The right to be heard is fundamental in contempt proceedings. The order is accordingly varied to issue a rule nisi, requiring 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 enforcement of its order is separate from any criminal sanction under the Income Tax Act, and the relief sought by the applicant is appropriate within the court's jurisdiction.

Citation
[2009] ZALC 228
Parties
Applicant: J M S Wessels; Respondent: J F de Jager t/a de Jager Boerdery
Court
Labour Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 August 2009
Case Number
J2692/07
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Variation of Contempt Order
Outcome
Order varied; rule nisi issued for respondent to show cause on 21 August 2009; costs awarded against respondent.
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 Boerdery

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Variation of Contempt Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent should be committed to prison for failing to comply with a court order requiring the issuance of an IRP5 form.
  2. 2 Whether the previous order was granted in error due to lack of opportunity for the respondent to show cause.
  3. 3 Whether the matter should be referred to the South African Revenue Services for prosecution under the Income Tax Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the previous order committing the respondent to prison was issued in error, as the respondent was not given an opportunity to show cause why he should not be committed. The right to be heard is fundamental in contempt proceedings. The order is accordingly varied to issue a rule nisi, requiring 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 enforcement of its order is separate from any criminal sanction under the Income Tax Act, and the relief sought by the applicant is appropriate within the court's jurisdiction.

Court Disposition

Order varied; rule nisi issued for respondent to show cause on 21 August 2009; costs awarded against respondent.

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 the respondent in contempt of court.
  • The respondent is to be detained and brought before the court to show cause why he should not be committed to detention in prison for a period of 15 days.