Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Others v Ndou and Another (076955/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 775 (11 August 2025)
The High Court found partial non-compliance with a prior order, granted contempt relief in terms of the draft prayers, and ordered punitive costs.
Carnaby Way Investments (Pty) Ltd v Koch and Others (532/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 73 (11 August 2025)
The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the criminal evidential burden of proof that the first respondent was aware of the court order. Although the first respondent was present during the proceedings, there was no evidence that the order was served on her or brought to her attention prior to the present application. Without proof of knowledge, the requirements for contempt, specifically wilfulness and mala fides, could not be established beyond reasonable doubt. The application for contempt was therefore dismissed.
Source excerpt
N.L.D v M.L (5785/22) [2025] ZAWCHC 337 (6 August 2025)
High Court granted payment of arrear maintenance under a Rule 43 order and held the respondent’s non-payment was wilful, with leave to pursue contempt if unpaid.
Mashinini v Minister of Correctional Services and Another (Ex Tempore) (2023-098939) [2025] ZAGPPHC 772 (30 July 2025)
Urgent contempt application over non-release on parole dismissed because the Minister was not cited personally and non-compliance was not shown to be mala fide.
Prime African (Pty) Ltd v Eskom Holding SOC Ltd and Others (2025/070166) [2025] ZAWCHC 306 (25 July 2025)
The court found that Eskom was not in wilful contempt of the 2024 order. Although Eskom failed to meet the deadline for the emergency procurement process, the evidence demonstrated substantial compliance and bona fide efforts to comply, with delays attributable to legitimate procurement complexities. The applicant failed to prove intentional or flagrant disregard of the order. The request to amend the 2024 order was rejected, as the principle of finality precludes substantive changes except for clerical errors or ambiguities, which were not present. The interdict relief sought was incompetent…
Source excerpt
S.S v M.A.S (110440/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 739 (25 July 2025)
The court found that the respondent had knowledge of the maintenance order and failed to comply with its terms, both historically and in the months immediately preceding the application. The respondent admitted arrears and made unilateral deductions from maintenance payments without legal entitlement. His defence of financial hardship was unsupported by evidence; he failed to provide bank statements, salary advices, or details of assets and expenses. The applicant, by contrast, provided documentary proof of the respondent's income and the limited liabilities on joint estate properties. The re…
Source excerpt
B.B.Y. v A.A.B.Y. (2022/17297) [2025] ZAGPJHC 747 (25 July 2025)
The High Court found a party in contempt for failing to comply with divorce and maintenance orders, rejected a Get-based conditionality defence, and suspended imprisonment on compliance.
Pienaar and Another v Raadt and Others (2277/2024) [2025] ZANCHC 64 (25 July 2025)
The High Court dismissed an urgent contempt application, finding the applicants had not proved non-compliance beyond reasonable doubt and ordered costs against them.
Isago Ka Lefika (Pty) Ltd v Sishen Iron Ore and Others (1416/2025) [2025] ZANCHC 67 (18 July 2025)
The High Court granted urgent interim interdictory relief and issued a rule nisi in contempt proceedings arising from alleged breach of a prior termination order.
Sheriff of The High Court: Giyani (Sydney Herbert Park, An Officer of Court) v Renky Thulani Makhubela (1270/2023) [2025] ZASCA 104 (15 July 2025)
The majority of the Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant, the sheriff, was not in contempt of court when he failed to transfer the funds as ordered by the high court. The sheriff had at all times evinced an intention to appeal the July order and was still within the 30-day period prescribed by the Superior Courts Act to petition the Supreme Court of Appeal. The majority found that the sheriff's conduct did not demonstrate contumacious disrespect for judicial authority but rather adherence to lawful appellate procedures. The automatic suspension of the judgment's execution pending a…
Source excerpt
Explore more
