Kwezi NO and Others v Kupiso (2025/013976) [2025] ZAGPJHC 1090 (31 October 2025)

Case Note

Kwezi N O and Others v Kupiso (2025-013976) [2025] ZAGPJHC --- (31 October 2025)

Reportability

This case is reportable as it highlights significant developments in the legal standard for granting leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013. It illustrates the transition from a more lenient approach to a stringent threshold in assessing the prospects of success for future appeals. The ruling emphasizes the need for a dispassionate analysis of whether a reasonable chance exists for differing conclusions by appellate courts. Given the critical context of contempt of court issues, the case contributes to the body of law surrounding enforcement of court orders and the rights of parties in such matters, making it significant for legal practitioners and scholars alike.

Cases Cited

1. Ramakatsa and Others v African National Congress and Another (724/2019) [2021] ZASCA 31 (31 March 2021)
2. S v Smith 2012 (1) SACR 567 (SCA), [2011] ZASCA 15
3. Mont Chevaux Trust v Tina Goosen, LCC 14R/2014 (unreported)
4. Notshokovu v S, case no: 157/2015 [2016] ZASCA 112 (7 September 2016)
5. Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others v Democratic Alliance In Re: Democratic Alliance v Acting National Director of Public Prosecutions and Others (19577/09) [2016] ZAGPPHC 489 (24 June 2016)
6. Absa Bank Ltd v Rhebokskloof (Pty) Ltd and Others 1993 (4) SA 436 (C)

Legislation Cited

• Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013

Rules of Court Cited

• Uniform Rule of Court 7(1)

HEADNOTE

Summary

This case concerns an application for leave to appeal against a previous finding of contempt of court by the respondent, Odwa Bongile Kupiso. The court found that the respondent had violated a court order, and following an analysis under section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act, it was concluded that the respondent demonstrated reasonable prospects for an appeal. Consequently, leave to appeal to the Full Court was granted.

Key Issues

The court examined multiple legal issues, including: - The threshold for granting leave to appeal under the Superior Courts Act. - The merits of the contempt of court finding against the respondent. - The authority of the applicants to proceed in their current capacities amid their suspension as trustees.

Held

The court held that the respondent's application for leave to appeal should be granted, finding that there are reasonable prospects that another court may arrive at a different conclusion regarding the contempt judgment. The findings from previous hearings were deemed potentially contestable, warranting an opportunity for appeal.

THE FACTS

The matter arose from an urgent application wherein the first to third applicants sought to have the respondent declared in contempt of a court order issued on 19 November 2024. The respondents argued that they were not responsible for the alleged contemptuous actions, attributing them to another entity, Masintinge Investments CC. The prior ruling found the respondent in contempt, resulting in a costs order against him. Following this, the respondent applied for leave to appeal, disputing the findings on the basis of legal and factual inaccuracies in the initial ruling.

THE ISSUES

The primary legal questions the court needed to resolve included: 1. Whether the respondent had demonstrated that the appeal would have a reasonable prospect of success according to the standard established by section 17(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act. 2. Whether the contempt finding against the respondent was justified based on the evidence and facts presented. 3. The implications of the applicants' suspended status as trustees on their ability to pursue the appeal.

ANALYSIS

The court undertook a thorough examination of the principles guiding the granting of leave to appeal. Citing previous judgments, it confirmed that the correct approach should allow an applicant to present plausible grounds for the appeal to succeed. The judge scrutinized the claims made by the respondent, particularly focusing on the distinction drawn between the respondent and the actions attributed to Masintinge Investments CC. This distinction was pivotal in assessing the validity of the contempt order, as well as any implications regarding the respondent's intent and alleged mala fides.

The court noted that the act of determining whether the applicants satisfied the criteria for initiating contempt proceedings was paramount to the case. Important to the analysis was the premise that the factual matrix provided by the respondent mirrored a potential circumstance where another court could reach a different conclusion based on similar facts, reflecting the stringent new standards established under the legislative framework.

REMEDY

The court ordered that the respondent's application for leave to appeal is granted, allowing him to pursue an appeal before the Full Court of the Gauteng Division. Additionally, it was decided that the costs associated with this application would be borne in the appeal.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

Key legal principles established include: - Understanding that under the Superior Courts Act, the threshold for leave to appeal has become significantly stricter, necessitating that an appellant provide compelling evidence of reasonably good prospects of success. - Clarification that parties in litigation, even when under suspension, retain certain powers to initiate or defend legal proceedings, as affirmed by the precedents in Absa Bank Ltd v Rhebokskloof. - The importance of distinguishing personal actions from corporate or third-party actions in contempt of court cases, underlining that intent and knowledge play crucial roles in such determinations.