South Africa Case Law

Mbiza and Another v Timati (2023/053714)

Mbiza and Another v Timati (2023/053714) [2025] ZAGPJHC 651 (27 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/053714

Judge

Dippenaar

The court found that the respondent made four Facebook posts after the interim interdict of 21 June 2023, at least two of which were defamatory and injurious to the applicants. The respondent's denials were bald, unsubstantiated, and failed to create bona fide factual disputes. The respondent did not provide any valid defence such as truth, fair comment, or privilege, nor did he discharge the evidential burden to cast reasonable doubt on willfulness and mala fide conduct. The court held that the respondent's conduct was in flagrant disregard of the court order and amounted to contempt beyond…

Source excerpt

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Defamation
• Interim Interdict
• Social Media Publication
• Freedom Of Expression Limitation

Makgari Communal Property Association v Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform, Limpopo Province and Others (5158/2018)

Makgari Communal Property Association v Department of Agriculture, Rural Development and Land Reform, Limpopo Province and Others (5158/2018) [2025] ZALMPPHC 114 (17 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

5158/2018

Judge

M Z Makoti

The High Court found the first respondent in contempt of a 2018 order to register a communal property association and pay costs, but dismissed the case against others.

• Communal Property Association Act
• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Title Deed Rectification
• Costs Award
• Civil-contempt-of-court
• Communal-property-association

Van Zyl v Muller (Reasons) (14435/2024)

Van Zyl v Muller (Reasons) (14435/2024) [2025] ZAWCHC 153 (28 March 2025)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

14435/2024

Judge

Parker AJ

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the respondent was in willful and mala fide default of the George Regional Court order. The dispute between the parties centered on the interpretation of the order, specifically whether the applicant was entitled to 23.5% of the gross value or net proceeds of the property. The respondent had engaged in negotiations and attempted to settle the amount due, demonstrating substantial compliance with the order. The court held that contempt proceedings were not competent in circumstances where the real issue was the meaning of the order, and t…

Source excerpt

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Interpretation Of Court Orders
• Property Sharing Agreements
• Enforcement Of Judgments

R.M.S v L.N.M and Another (2025/019141)

R.M.S v L.N.M and Another (2025/019141) [2025] ZAGPJHC 204 (28 February 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/019141

Judge

F Marcandonatos

The High Court dismissed a contempt counter-application over a children’s court order, finding the respondent’s non-compliance was not wilful or mala fide.

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Interim Custody Orders
• Urgent Application Procedure
• Best Interests Of Child
• Civil-contempt-of-court
• Family-law

T.M.B v M.C.R and Others (358/22)

T.M.B v M.C.R and Others (358/22) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1062 (30 October 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

358/22

Judge

Mncube

The High Court found the first respondent in contempt for failing to comply with a prior order, and imposed a suspended fine or imprisonment plus punitive costs.

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Enforcement Of Court Orders
• Settlement Agreement
• Punitive Costs
• Civil-contempt-of-court
• Enforcement-of-court-orders

Allie and Others v Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 145/2019)

Allie and Others v Department of Rural Development and Land Reform and Others (LCC 145/2019) [2024] ZALCC 16 (8 May 2024)

Court

Land Claims Court

Case number

LCC 145/2019

Judge

Flatela

The court found that the applicants failed to prove that the State Respondents, specifically the Chief Land Claims Commissioner and Regional Land Claims Commissioner, had personal knowledge of the court order dated 14 June 2023. The applicants did not comply with the service directives requiring service on the relevant offices and legal representatives. The requirement for personal service or joinder in contempt proceedings seeking committal is constitutionally mandated to protect the rights of the alleged contemnors. As the applicants did not establish wilful and mala fide non-compliance, an…

Source excerpt

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Personal Service Requirement
• Joinder Of Parties
• Land Restitution
• Costs Order

D.N.Q v P.Q (49090/2021)

D.N.Q v P.Q (49090/2021) [2024] ZAGPPHC 12 (12 January 2024)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

49090/2021

Judge

C Marumoagae

The High Court dismissed a contempt application arising from divorce proceedings, finding the respondent had made partial payments and that wilful bad faith was not proven.

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Rule 43 Interim Relief
• Maintenance
• Municipal Services Liability
• Costs In Divorce
• Alternative Dispute Resolution

Hermanus and Others v Liebenberg (081333/2023)

Hermanus and Others v Liebenberg (081333/2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1788 (4 October 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

081333/2023

Judge

Collis

The High Court dismissed an urgent contempt application, finding the applicants failed to prove the respondent had notice of the order and that non-compliance was established.

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Urgent Application
• Notice Of Court Order
• Burden Of Proof
• Costs Award
• Civil-contempt-of-court

Nedbank Limited v Campbell (6350/2021)

Nedbank Limited v Campbell (6350/2021) [2023] ZAWCHC 88 (2 May 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

6350/2021

Judge

P. S. Van Zyl

The High Court dismissed Nedbank’s contempt and National Credit Act application after finding the respondent had not wilfully disobeyed the order.

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• National Credit Act
• Wilful Disobedience
• Burden Of Proof
• Statutory Obligation To Disclose
• Civil-contempt

Huysamen and Others v Bluechip Retail Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another (8528/2022)

Huysamen and Others v Bluechip Retail Solutions (Pty) Ltd and Another (8528/2022) [2023] ZAGPJHC 36 (19 January 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

8528/2022

Judge

ML Senyatsi

The court found that the applicants had discharged the onus of proving that the respondents were in civil contempt of the spoliation order issued by the Tembisa Magistrates Court. The High Court confirmed its inherent jurisdiction to enforce civil contempt, rejecting the respondents' argument that only the Magistrates Court could enforce its own orders. The court also dismissed the respondents' contention that the matter fell within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Labour Court, as the original order was for spoliation and not an employment dispute. The respondents failed to bring a proper c…

Source excerpt

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Spoliation Order
• Jurisdiction Of High Court
• Urgent Interdict