South Africa Case Law

Carnaby Way Investments (Pty) Ltd v Koch and Others (532/2024)

Carnaby Way Investments (Pty) Ltd v Koch and Others (532/2024) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 73 (11 August 2025)

Court

Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

532/2024

Judge

Msibi AJ

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

• Contempt Of Court
• Service Of Court Orders
• Wilful Disobedience
• Burden Of Proof

Sefiri and Another v Mhlanga and Others (59307/2021)

Sefiri and Another v Mhlanga and Others (59307/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 277 (4 May 2022)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

59307/2021

Judge

L R Adams

The court found that the applicants failed to prove contempt of court against the Minister of Police beyond reasonable doubt. The order of Wepener J was not formally served on the Minister, and there was insufficient evidence that the Minister's non-compliance was deliberate or mala fide. The Minister's obligation to arrest the first respondent was subject to suspensive conditions, and there was no proof that these conditions were met or communicated to the Minister in accordance with legal requirements. The court held that, although the Minister was properly cited and had notice of the proce…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Mandament Van Spolie
• Eviction Without Court Order
• Service Of Court Orders

Howard v Bliumenthal (44102/2019)

Howard v Bliumenthal (44102/2019) [2021] ZAGPJHC 363 (3 June 2021)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

44102/2019

Judge

M A Makume

The High Court dismissed an application to strike out pleadings under Rule 35(7), holding that compliance periods ran from service of the orders, not grant.

• Discovery Procedure
• Rule 35 Application
• Strike Out Proceedings
• Service Of Court Orders
• Civil-procedure
• Discovery

Tonise v Director General for the Department of Labour; Kritzinger v Director General for the Department of Labour (4353/16; 3250/17)

Tonise v Director General for the Department of Labour; Kritzinger v Director General for the Department of Labour (4353/16; 3250/17) [2019] ZAECPEHC 36 (11 June 2019)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

4353/16; 3250/17

Judge

D Van Zyl

The court found that the applicants failed to establish the requirements for contempt of court against the Director-General personally. The respondent had delegated the relevant statutory functions and did not have personal knowledge of the orders or the failure to comply. There was no evidence of wilful or mala fide non-compliance by the respondent. The applicants did not allege or prove that the respondent personally defied the orders, and their case was based on holding the Director-General responsible for the failures of other functionaries. The late filing of answering affidavits was con…

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Compensation For Occupational Injuries
• Delegation Of Statutory Functions
• Service Of Court Orders

Swissport South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mphahlele and Others (J1917/16)

Swissport South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Mphahlele and Others (J1917/16) [2017] ZALCJHB 472; (2018) 39 ILJ 656 (LC) (19 December 2017)

Court

Labour Court Johannesburg

Case number

J1917/16

Judge

Lagrange

Although the national office bearers of the union breached their implicit obligation to ensure the court order was conveyed to members in Cape Town, the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that their non-compliance was wilful and mala fide. The respondents believed that, provided they did not actively promote the strike, they were not in breach of the order. The court found this rationale expedient but could not confidently conclude that the respondents appreciated a positive obligation to notify members. As such, contempt was not established to the required standard.

Source excerpt

• Contempt Of Court
• Strike Interdict
• Service Of Court Orders
• Union Duties
• Wilfulness And Mala Fides

Clabo Braaihoender CC t/a KFC Mookgophong v Care Centre, Catering, Retail and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Others (J 2122/09)

Clabo Braaihoender CC t/a KFC Mookgophong v Care Centre, Catering, Retail and Allied Workers Union of South Africa and Others (J 2122/09) [2010] ZALC 284 (14 January 2010)

Court

Labour Court

Case number

J 2122/09

Judge

Van Niekerk

Labour Court dealt with contempt arising from strike-related interdict breaches, confirmed the original rule nisi, but discharged the later committal rule.

• Strike Misconduct
• Interdict
• Civil Contempt
• Service Of Court Orders
• Civil-contempt
• Labour-interdicts

Marr v MEC Department of Health Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Another (3908/05 , ECJ29/06)

Marr v MEC Department of Health Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Another (3908/05 , ECJ29/06) [2006] ZAECHC 16 (10 April 2006)

Court

High Courts - Eastern Cape

Case number

3908/05

Judge

Matthee AJ

High Court contempt judgment concerning non-compliance with an order for hospital records, personal accountability of a MEC, and de bonis propriis costs.

• Promotion Of Access To Information Act
• Contempt Of Court
• Personal Accountability Of Public Officials
• Costs De Bonis Propriis
• Constitutional Obligations
• Service Of Court Orders