South Africa Case Law

Anglo-Black (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bower and Another (1528/2024)

Anglo-Black (Pty) Ltd and Another v Bower and Another (1528/2024) [2025] ZAMPMHC 13 (4 March 2025)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

1528/2024

Judge

JL Bhengu

The court found that the applicants failed to prove contempt in respect of the spoliation order, as Mr Bower's bona fide belief that the order was suspended by his application for leave to appeal raised reasonable doubt as to wilfulness and mala fides. However, regarding the publication titled 'LAWFUL NOTICE AND CHALLENGE', the court held that the statements made by Mr Bower scandalised the court, undermined its authority, and were made wilfully and with malice. The defence of legal advice was rejected as improbable and lacking sufficient detail, especially given the continuous legal represen…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Scandalising The Court
• Business Rescue
• Mining Rights
• Superior Courts Act
• Punitive Costs

Moyo v Old Mutual Ltd and Others (22791/2019)

Moyo v Old Mutual Ltd and Others (22791/2019) [2022] ZAGPJHC 336; [2022] 3 All SA 795 (GJ) (16 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

22791/2019

Judges

Raulinga, Twala, Opperman

The High Court dismissed contempt and delinquency claims against Old Mutual and its directors, finding no contempt, no delinquency, and lawful termination.

• Delinquency Of Directors
• Contempt Of Court
• Fiduciary Duties
• Breach Of Trust
• Section 162 Companies Act
• Scandalising The Court

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Gcora (992/2016)

Nelson Mandela Bay Municipality v Gcora (992/2016) [2018] ZAECPEHC 34; 2019 (2) SACR 451 (ECP) (10 July 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

992/2016

Judges

Mbenenge, M Makaula, L Ntsepe

The respondent's repeated and extreme remarks about the judiciary and municipal officials, made in various communications, constitute contempt ex facie curiae by scandalising the court and undermining judicial authority. The apology and contrition expressed by the respondent are mitigating factors, but do not negate the contemptuous nature of his conduct. The applicant has established a clear right to protection from ongoing defamation and derogatory remarks, and the requirements for an interdict have been satisfied. The respondent's counter-application lacks merit, as he has failed to provid…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Scandalising The Court
• Interdict
• Defamation
• Judicial Authority
• Costs Order

S v Mamabolo (CCT 44/00)

S v Mamabolo (CCT 44/00) [2001] ZACC 17; 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC); 2001 (5) BCLR 449 (CC); 2001 (1) SACR 686 (CC) (11 April 2001)

Court

Constitutional Court

Case number

CCT 44/00

Judges

Kriegler, Chaskalson, Ackermann, Goldstone, Madala, Mokgoro, Ngcobo, Yacoob, Madlanga, Somyalo, Sachs

The Constitutional Court held that the crime of scandalising the court remains constitutionally valid but is now tightly circumscribed. The threshold for conviction is high: only egregious cases where conduct is likely to damage the administration of justice may be prosecuted. The offence is justified by the need to protect the integrity of the judiciary, which is essential for the rule of law. However, the summary procedure employed in the High Court was found to be unconstitutional, as it infringed the appellant's fair trial rights. The appellant's statements did not amount to contempt of c…

Source excerpt

• Freedom Of Expression
• Contempt Of Court
• Scandalising The Court
• Fair Trial Rights
• Bill Of Rights Limitation

S v Harber and Another (341/1986)

S v Harber and Another (341/1986) [1988] ZASCA 34; [1988] 4 All SA 496 (AD) (30 March 1988)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

341/1986

Judges

Rabie, Jansen, Van Heerden, Vivier, Viljoen

The court held that mens rea is required for contempt of court and rejected strict liability for media publication, setting aside one conviction but upholding two others.

• Contempt Of Court
• Media Commentary On Pending Proceedings
• Mens Rea
• Strict Liability
• Scandalising The Court
• Contempt-of-court