S v Mdlikiva (Review) (317/2025) [2025] ZAWCHC 544 (21 November 2025)

Case Note

Case Name: The State v Sonwabo Mdlikiva
Citation: High Court case number: 317/2025; Magistrates’ Court case number: C906/2022
Date: 21 November 2025

Reportability

This case is reportable due to its significant implications for the jurisdictional reach of magistrates’ courts regarding contempt of court charges. The judgment clarifies that magistrates’ courts possess the necessary criminal jurisdiction to hear contempt charges arising from breaches of High Court orders. This finding is crucial for the effective enforcement of court orders and upholding the rule of law in South Africa.

The issue arose following a conviction in the Magistrates’ Court that was flagged during a quality assessment for lack of jurisdiction. The High Court's confirmation of the magistrates’ court's authority sets a pertinent precedent for future cases involving contempt of court, emphasizing the magistrates’ courts' role in the hierarchy of judicial authority and their functions in maintaining the integrity of court orders.

Cases Cited

1. S v Beyers 1968 (3) SA 70 (A)
2. Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA)
3. Dreyer v Wiebols and others 2013 (4) SA 498 (GSJ)
4. R v Mans 1950 (1) SA 602 (C)
5. Die Staat v Innes Grant 1923 NPA 425
6. Die Staat v van Wyk 1934 CPD 308
7. R v Van Rooyen 1958 (2) SA 558 (T)
8. Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd and others v Esselen's Estate 1994 (2) SA 1 (A)
9. S v Bresler and another 2002 (2) SACR 18 (C)
10. Samuels v S 2016 (2) SACR 298 (WCC)

Legislation Cited

1. Magistrates’ Courts Act 32 of 1944
2. Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977

Rules of Court Cited

No specific rules of court were cited.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The High Court addressed the jurisdiction of the Magistrates’ Court to adjudicate criminal contempt cases arising from breaches of High Court orders. The matter was reviewed following concerns about the Magistrates’ Court’s authority to enforce contempt through criminal charges. The High Court affirmed the magistrates' jurisdiction under the Magistrates’ Courts Act, thereby upholding the initial conviction of Sonwabo Mdlikiva.

Key Issues

The central legal issues included: - Whether the Magistrates’ Court has jurisdiction to hear contempt of court cases arising from High Court orders. - The implications of the Magistrates’ Courts Act and the Criminal Procedure Act regarding the enforcement of court orders.

Held

The High Court held that the Magistrates’ Court has the requisite jurisdiction under section 89(1) of the Magistrates’ Courts Act to hear cases of contempt of court, including those involving High Court orders. Therefore, the conviction and sentence imposed on Mdlikiva were confirmed.

THE FACTS

Sonwabo Mdlikiva was convicted in the George Magistrates’ Court for contempt of court on 23 April 2024, following his breach of an interdict issued by the Western Cape High Court in May 2022. The charge specified that Mdlikiva had unlawfully engaged in a public transport service contrary to the conditions set in the High Court order, thereby impairing the authority of the court. Mdlikiva had legal representation during the trial and pleaded guilty, resulting in a fine of R3,000 or 3 months' imprisonment.

Subsequent reviews in 2025 raised concerns about whether the Magistrates’ Court had overstepped its jurisdiction by imposing a contempt conviction based on a High Court order. This concern initiated a special review under section 304(4) of the Criminal Procedure Act.

THE ISSUES

The legal questions the court had to decide included: - Did the Magistrates' Court possess the necessary criminal jurisdiction to adjudicate contempt stemming from a High Court order? - What is the relevance of the statutes governing magistrates’ courts in regard to their powers to enforce court orders?

ANALYSIS

The court engaged deeply with the existing statutes that outline the jurisdictional limits of magistrates’ courts, notably sections 89 and 90 of the Magistrates’ Courts Act. It was determined that contempt of court is recognized as a common law crime, which should not be excluded from the magistrates’ courts' jurisdiction unless explicitly stated. The court reviewed prior case law indicating that magistrates’ courts traditionally handled contempt cases related to their orders and confirmed that nothing precluded them from addressing breaches of High Court orders under criminal law.

The decision underscored the principle that the integrity of the judiciary must be maintained through the ability of all courts to impose sanctions for contempt, reinforcing trust in the legal system. By clarifying these jurisdictional boundaries, the judgment ensures greater consistency in how contempt of court is treated across different levels of the judiciary.

REMEDY

The High Court ordered the confirmation of the proceedings from the Magistrates’ Court, which included upholding Mdlikiva's conviction and sentence. This remedy reinforces the magistrates' courts' authority and their capacity to adjudicate on essential matters of judicial integrity and contempt of court.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

The judgment established several key legal principles, notably: - The authority of the Magistrates’ Court to enforce laws relating to contempt, even when the underlying order emanates from a High Court. - The understanding that contempt of court can be both a civil and criminal matter, with the latter being justiciable in magistrates’ courts provided the statutory requirements are met. - A reaffirmation that all courts, including magistrates’ courts, play a vital role in upholding the rule of law and dignity of the judiciary through their contempt powers.