South Africa Case Law

Nxolo v Road Accident Fund (34757/2014; 60468/2018)

Nxolo v Road Accident Fund (34757/2014; 60468/2018) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1350 (11 December 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

34757/2014; 60468/2018

Judge

Davis

The court held that granting a second order compelling the Road Accident Fund to furnish an undertaking, when such an order has already been granted, is improper and undermines the authority of the original order. The correct remedy for non-compliance with a court order ad factum praestandum is to initiate civil contempt proceedings against the responsible officials. The practice of repeatedly applying for duplicate orders is disconcerting, wasteful, and should be halted. The Road Accident Fund, as an organ of State, has a heightened duty to comply with court orders and respect the rule of la…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Duplicate Orders
• Road Accident Fund Act
• Ad Factum Praestandum

Department of Human Settlements, Eastern Cape Province and Another v Diutwileng (3486/2022)

Department of Human Settlements, Eastern Cape Province and Another v Diutwileng (3486/2022) [2023] ZAECMKHC 121 (31 October 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Makhanda

Case number

3486/2022

Judge

Rugunanan

The court found that the respondent had knowledge of the court orders and failed to comply with them by not returning the laptop. The respondent's version that the laptop was stolen was previously rejected as false, and she failed to provide credible evidence to support her defence of impossibility. The forensic evidence showed the laptop was used at her residence after the alleged theft, and the respondent did not rebut this evidence with contrary expert testimony or affidavits. Her conduct demonstrated deliberate disregard for the court orders, and she did not take any steps to appeal, seek…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Wilfulness And Mala Fides
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Burden Of Proof
• Motion Proceedings

Mokoena and Others v Masoeu and Others (4373/2021)

Mokoena and Others v Masoeu and Others (4373/2021) [2023] ZAFSHC 96 (27 March 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4373/2021

Judge

Van Zyl

The court found that the discharge of the interim order did not impose any obligation on the respondents to act or refrain from acting. The interim order had interdicted and restrained the applicants, not the respondents, from certain conduct. Upon discharge, the applicants were no longer restrained, but this did not create any corresponding obligation for the respondents. The wording of the interim order did not grant rights or relief to the respondents that they now had to undo or refrain from exercising. Consequently, the discharge order was not ad factum praestandum and could not be enfor…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Costs Order
• Interim Interdict
• Matrimonial Property Act

Road Traffic Management Corporation v Tasima (Pty) Ltd (JA10/19)

Road Traffic Management Corporation v Tasima (Pty) Ltd (JA10/19) [2019] ZALAC 33; (2019) 40 ILJ 1785 (LAC) (15 March 2019)

Court

Labour Appeal Court

Case number

JA10/19

Judges

Coppin, Murphy, Savage

The Labour Appeal Court held that the Labour Court could not grant consequential relief under section 18 of the Superior Courts Act pending appeal.

• Section 197 Transfer
• Superior Courts Act Section 18
• Declaratory Relief
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Ad Pecuniam Solvendam
• Superior-courts-act-section-18

Mathaba v Mdluli and Others (6366/2017)

Mathaba v Mdluli and Others (6366/2017) [2017] ZAGPJHC 71 (14 March 2017)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

6366/2017

Judge

WHG van der Linde

Urgent contempt application dismissed where the applicant failed to prove wilful non-compliance with a prior order and the writ of execution was found vague.

• Contempt Of Court
• Urgent Application
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Writ Of Execution
• Costs Order
• Contempt-of-court

Saaiman N.O and Others v Saaiman and Others (53177/13)

Saaiman N.O and Others v Saaiman and Others (53177/13) [2016] ZAGPPHC 105 (19 February 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

53177/13

Judge

Louw AJ

The court found that the respondents provided a sufficient answer to the allegations of contempt, confirming payment and explaining the handling of funds under oath. The applicants failed to discharge the onus of proving contempt of court beyond reasonable doubt. The alleged short payment of interest was not raised in the founding papers and constituted a new issue in the application for leave to appeal, which the court refused to entertain. The court applied the Plascon-Evans approach, adjudicating the matter on the respondents' version, as neither party requested referral to oral evidence.…

Source excerpt

• Leave To Appeal
• Contempt Of Court
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Ad Pecuniam Solvendam
• Rule 7 Uniform Rules
• Costs Order

Mellet v Kampherbeek and Another (3093/2013)

Mellet v Kampherbeek and Another (3093/2013) [2014] ZAFSHC 29 (13 March 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

3093/2013

Judge

Lekale

The court found that the order made by agreement was authoritative and compulsive, obliging the first respondent to deliver the specified documents. The respondent's argument that the order only recorded reciprocal contractual obligations was rejected. The order was sufficiently clear and specific to inform the respondent of his obligations. The respondent's explanation for non-compliance was not reasonably possibly true, as he could have indicated the non-existence of documents or refused to agree to the order. The only reasonable conclusion was that the documents existed and were available…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Settlement Agreement As Court Order
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Wilful Non Compliance
• Costs Punitive Order

Lujabe v Maruatona (35730/2012)

Lujabe v Maruatona (35730/2012) [2013] ZAGPJHC 66 (15 April 2013)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

35730/2012

Judge

Molahlehi

The High Court dismissed a contempt application because the settlement terms made an order of court were too vague to enforce by committal.

• Contempt Of Court
• Settlement Agreement Enforceability
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Pecunium Solvendam
• Contempt-of-court
• Settlement-agreement-enforceability

Rohde v Rohde and Others (4966/09)

Rohde v Rohde and Others (4966/09) [2011] ZAFSHC 157 (15 September 2011)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

4966/09

Judge

E. M. Kubushi

High Court contempt application dismissed: the settlement obligations were mostly money judgments, and the trust/trustees were not parties to the divorce proceedings.

• Contempt Of Court
• Enforcement Of Settlement
• Trust Law
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Ad Pecuniam Solvendam
• Contempt-of-court

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Beukes (37742/2006)

City of Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v Beukes (37742/2006) [2009] ZAGPPHC 267 (22 September 2009)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

37742/2006

Judge

Mothle AJ

The court found the first respondent guilty of contempt for prolonged non-compliance with a 2006 order about unlawful use of property and building plans.

• Contempt Of Court
• Ad Factum Praestandum
• Town Planning Scheme
• Building Regulations
• Specific Performance
• Contempt-of-court