Wilhelm v Boshoff (3874/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 66 (4 June 2019)

Wilhelm v Boshoff (3874/2017) [2019] ZAECGHC 66 (4 June 2019)

The respondent was aware of the court order and failed to comply with its terms. His explanations for non-compliance were vague, perfunctory, and did not cover the entire period of default. The respondent did not discharge his evidentiary burden to prove that his failure was not wilful and mala fide. The applicant established beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent is in contempt of the court order. The court found that the respondent's conduct was deliberate and malicious, justifying the granting of the relief sought by the applicant.

Citation
[2019] ZAECGHC 66
Parties
Applicant: Johann George Wilhelm; Respondent: Robert Michael Boshoff
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 June 2019
Case Number
3874/2017
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
The respondent is declared in contempt of the court order and is directed to purge his contempt by performing his contractual obligations as set out in the applicant's notice of motion.
Judges
J.E Smith
Legal Topics
Contempt of Court, Specific Performance, Contractual Obligations
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Contempt of Court Specific Performance Contractual Obligations

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johann George Wilhelm

Applicant

Robert Michael Boshoff

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent is in contempt of the court order granted by Lowe J on 31 October 2017.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's failure to comply with the order was wilful and mala fide.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to further relief as sought in the notice of motion.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondent was aware of the court order and failed to comply with its terms. His explanations for non-compliance were vague, perfunctory, and did not cover the entire period of default. The respondent did not discharge his evidentiary burden to prove that his failure was not wilful and mala fide. The applicant established beyond a reasonable doubt that the respondent is in contempt of the court order. The court found that the respondent's conduct was deliberate and malicious, justifying the granting of the relief sought by the applicant.

Court Disposition

The respondent is declared in contempt of the court order and is directed to purge his contempt by performing his contractual obligations as set out in the applicant's notice of motion.

Orders

  • The respondent is declared to be in contempt of the court order granted by Lowe J on 31 October 2017.
  • The respondent is directed to specifically perform his obligations as contractor in terms of the agreement annexed as JW2, including supplying and delivering materials, erecting the steel structure and lean-to roof, and attending to concrete flooring works at Walsingham Farm, Southwell Road, Bathurst District, to...