About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2023
>>
[2023] ZAFSHC 78
|
|
Khepeng and Another v Maseko and Another (4777/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 78 (13 March 2023)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
FREE
STATE DIVISION
,
BLOEMFONTEIN
Application
no.:4777/2022
Reportable:
YES/NO
Of
Interest to other Judges: YES/NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES/NO
In
the matter between:
TEBOHO
CLEMENT
KHEPENG
1
st
Applicant
HOUSE
PHOLA
(
PTY
)
LTD
t/a
HOUSE
POLA
LOUNGE
(Reg.
no.:
2020/729013/07)
2
nd
Applicant
and
BONGA
PAUL MASEKO
1
st
Respondent
JAPPY
JACOB
MASANGANI
2
nd
Respondent
CORAM:
VANZYL, J
HEARD
ON:
18 OCTOBER
2022
DELIVERED
ON:
13 MARCH 2023
[1]
This
matter
first
served
before
me
on
an
urgent
basis
on
11 October
2022.
It
was then postponed by agreement between the
parties
to be heard on 18
October 2022,
the
wasted
costs to
stand
over for later adjudication.
[2]
In terms of
the notice of motion the applicants initially sought the following
relief:
"1
.
That the rules pertaining to form, service and notice be dispensed
with and that the application be heard as one of urgency in
terms of
Rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of Court.
2.
That the first
and second respondents
be declared
in contempt
of the order
of 30 September 2022.
3.
That a fine be
imposed upon the first and second respondents jointly and severally.
4.
That
a
period
of
incarceration
be
imposed
on
the
first
and
second
respondents for such a period as the Court deems appropriate.
5.
Enforcement
of the order
of 30 September
2022 and the
further order interdicting the respondents' event of 8 October 2022.
6.
Directing
the
respondents
to
pay
the
costs
of
this
application
on
an attorney
and client scale."
Background:
[3]
The first
applicant, who is the sole director and accounting officer of the
second applicant, deposed to the founding affidavit.
[4]
The property
relevant to the dispute between the parties is 1707 Petsana, Reitz.
I will
henceforth refer to it as "the property".
[5]
The first
applicant entered into a lease agreement with the respondents on 1
April 2020.
Due to reasons
which are not relevant for purposes of this application, the first
applicant later entered into a further lease agreement
pertaining to
the property with Mr Mokoena and thereafter with Lorraine and
Precious Mahamotsa. What is of importance is that the
first applicant
has been conducting a restaurant business at the property under the
second applicant's name since 1 April 2020
until July 2022 when the
respondents evicted the first applicant from the property.
The first
applicant has since lodged an application for spoliation in
this court
under case number 4751/2022.
[6]
On 28
September 2022 it came to the knowledge of the first applicant that
the respondents were to host an event at the property
under the name
of the second applicant on 1 October 2022. The applicants
consequently approached Court on 30 September 2022 on
an urgent basis
and Loubser, J, granted the following order (the order):
"1.
The normal rules pertaining to form, service and notice are dispensed
with and
this matter is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule
6(12) of the Rules of the above Honourable Court and enrolled as
such.
2.
The
respondents are interdicted from hosting the public event as
scheduled for 1 October 2022 at House Phola Restaurant situated
at
1707, Petsana, Reitz.
3.
The
respondents are ordered to unreservedly retract any posters and/or
notices published pertaining to the public event scheduled
for 1
October 2022 as disseminated on their Facebook account and any other
public platform.
4.
The
respondents are interdicted from hosting any other public event at
House Phola Restaurant pending finalisation of the motion
proceedings
with Bloemfontein
High Court,
case number 4751/2022."
[7]
It is not in
dispute that the respondents were informed about the order. On their
own version their legal representatives read the
order to them
telephonically on 30 September 2022 and enquired from them whether
they knew what a public event is, which they confirmed.
The order was
also later served on the respondents by the sheriff on Tuesday, 4
October 2022.
[8]
The
respondents do also not dispute that despite the order, they went
ahead and hosted the event on 1 October 2022 at the property
under
the name of the second applicant. The respondents also failed to
remove the
posters and/or notices on
Facebook with
regard to the event scheduled for 1 October 2022.
They even made
mention of
the
interdict on
some
of
the Facebook
pages, the detail of which I will refer to hereunder.
[9]
It is also not
in dispute that to date of the filing of the present application, the
respondents have been continuing to organise
and host events in the
name of the second applicant at the property.
[10]
The defence raised by
the respondents
are that they
have not and do
not
intent
to
host
a
public
event
as
prohibited
by
the
order.
According to them the 1
October 2022 event and the subsequent events they have been hosting
are not "public events".
In this regard
the first respondent stated as follows at paragraph 3 of the
answering affidavit:
"On
the 30
th
September 2022 I was interdicted from hosting
public events from the 1st October 2022. I only hosted one public
event on the 24th
September 2022 at Petsana Stadium prior to the
order being issued. I have been hosting events since 2016 and in
terms of the Safety
at Sports and Recreational Events Act, no.
20/2010 (SASREA) are to be held at the stadium and must comply with
further requirements
in terms of this Act. All other events I am
hosting are part of Restaurant Licence issued by Free State Liquor
Board and not public
events. I attach hereto my licence for the
premises issued on the 1st November 2022 marked 'BM8'."
[11]
The
first
respondent
further stated
the
following
at
paragraph
15
of
the answering affidavit:
"15.1
The applicants knew on the 15 July 2022 that I will be using my
business again. Events are part and parcel of that business.
I again
observe that the applicant is now using the word event instead of the
Public Event he applied interdict for Public event
and event are
different.
15.1.1
I hosted an event as
part of restaurant activity in terms of the license.
15.2
I am advised
to place the following differences of the two events and hereby do.
15.2.1
A restaurant
marketing events similar to the one I have are not public events. As
we make them every weekend. Some places call them
Karaoke Nights,
comedy night etc.
15.2.2
A Public event
is an event regulated in terms of the Safety at Sports and Recreation
Events Act and these are events that are organized
at the stadiums
and venues that are for public events such as Pacofs, ICC etc where
events such as the recent Macufe were held.
15.2.3
In
the
event
that
I
were
to
want
to
hold
a
Public
Event
at
House Phola Lounge, I
would be required to have compliance certificate in terms of SASREA
law and also get a Special Event Certificate
from the Liquor Board.
15.2.4
The
respondents therefore did not hold a public event and did not
disregard and was not disobedient to the Court order granted by
Loubser Jon
30
September 2022."
(sic)
Ad
ur
g
enc
y
:
[12]
The
first
applicant
stated that
as
part
of his
contractual
obligations, he is still responsible for the monthly payment of the
rental of the property.
However, the
respondents are carrying on business at the
property in
the
name
of the
second
applicant and are
therefore
gaining financially to the detriment of the applicants.
The applicants
have suppliers who have been supplying them for the past two years at
the property and in the name of the second
applicant.
Considering
that the respondents are conducting business at the very same
property, also in the name of the second applicant, the
applicants
are running the risk that the respondents
may
conclude agreements with those suppliers in the name of the second
applicant.
This may
result in the applicants being held liable in terms of such
agreements and possibly become embroiled in litigation at the
expense
of the applicants.
[13]
As holder of
the lease agreement
pertaining to
the property,
the first
applicant is liable for any damage to the prGperty.
Considering
the events that are being hosted by the respondents at the
property, the
first applicant is running the risk of being responsible for payment
of damages to the property which occurs during
such events.
Legal
Principles: Contempt of Court
[14]
It is trite
that the requirements for a finding of contempt of court are the
following:
1.
The order by
the Court.
2.
Service
of
the
order
on the
respondents
and/or
knowledge
of the order
by the respondents.
3.
Non-compliance
of the order by the respondents.
See
Fakie
N.O. v CCII Systems
(Pty}
Ltd
[2006] ZASCA 52
;
2006 (4)
SA 326
(SCA)
at para
[42]
.
[15]
A
materia
l
failure
to
comply
with
the
order
has
to
be
shown.
In
Consolidated
Fish Distributors
(Pty}
Ltd
v
Zive
1968
(2)
SA
517
(C) at 522 this
was applied
:
"Contempt
of Court, in the present context, means the deliberate, intentional
(i.e. wilful), disobedience of an order granted
by a Court of
competent jurisdiction...
In
Southey
v Southey,
1907
E.D.C. 133
at p. 137, it was said that
applicant
for
an
attachment
had
to
show
a
wilful
and
material
failure
to comply with the reasonable construction of the order. The
requirement of materiality is hardly ever mentioned in the cases,
however, probably for the reason that in 99 per cent of these cases
the whole order was disobeyed, which is obviously a 'material'
non-compliance. It is reasonable to suggest that where most of the
order has been complied with and the non-compliance is in respect
of
some minor matter only, the Court would take the
substantial
compliance
into account, and would not commit for the minor non
compliance." (Own emphasis)
[16]
The
requirements have to be proven by the applicants beyond reasonable
doubt. See
Fakie
N.O. v CCII Systems
(Pty)
Ltd
,
supra,
at para
[42].
See
also
Tasima
(Pty)
Ltd
v Department of
Transport
[2016] 1
ALL SA 465
(SCA).
[17]
In order for a
person to be found guilty of contempt of court, the disobedience must
not only be wilful, but also ma/a
fide.
See
Clement
v Clement
1961 (3)
SA 861
(T) at 866A.
[18]
As soon as the
first three elements for contempt of court exist, a presumption
exists that contempt has been established and ma/a
fides
and
wilfulness are presumed, unless the respondent is able to lead
evidence sufficient to create reasonable doubt as to its existence.
Should the
respondent be
unsuccessful
in
discharging
the evidential burden, contempt will be established. See
Matihabeng
Municipality v Eskom
2018 (1)
SA 1
(CC) at para [63].
Consideration
of the ur
g
enc
y
and the
merits of
the
a
pp
lication:
Urgency:
[19]
In my view the
applicants have fully set out the reasons in substantiation of their
request that the application be heard on an
urgent basis.
[20]
As correctly
pointed out by Ms Nyezi, there is in any event an element of urgency
in contempt proceedings.
In this regard
she referred to the judgment in
Victoria
Park
Rate
p
a
y
ers
'
Association
v
Gre
yv
enouw
CC and Others
(511)/03)
[2003] ZAECHC 19
(11 April 2003) at para [5]:
"
.
.
.
Contempt of
court has obvious implications for the effectiveness and legitimacy
of the legal system and the judicial arm of government.
There is thus
a public interest element in each and every case in which it is
alleged that the party has wilfully and in bad faith
ignored or
otherwise failed to comply with a court order.
This added
element provides to every such case an element of urgency
.
"
[21]
In
Wri
g
ht
v Saint Mar
y
's
Hos
p
ital
,
Melmoth
and Another
1993
(2)
SA 226 (D) at 228E -
F
the court held as follows with regard to continued disregard of a
court order:
"In
Protea
Holdings Ltd v Wriwt and Another
1978
(3) SA 865
(W) it was held that if it is established in committal
proceedings that the guilty party continues to disregard the order of
court
the element of urgency sufficient to justify seeking relief by
way of urgent application is thereby established.
I am
prima
facie
in
agreement with this conclusion and the reasoning of Nestadt, J in
arriving thereat."
Also
see
Secreta
ry
,
Judicial
Commission
of
En
q
uir
y
into
Alle
g
ations
of State Ca
p
ture
v Zuma and Others
2021
(5) SA 327
(CC) at paras [31]
-
[34].
[22]
In the
totality of the circumstances of the application, also considering
the findings regarding the merits of the application I
am to make
hereunder, I am satisfied that the applicants have made out a proper
case with regard to the urgency of the application.
Merits:
[23]
Like I have
already indicated, it is not in dispute that the contents of the
order came to the knowledge of the respondents on the
day it was
issued. This is further confirmed by the post that was made on
Facebook with regard to the order, the contents of which
I will refer
to hereunder.
[24]
With regard to
the respondents' failure to have removed the posters and/or notices
from Facebook as ordered in paragraph 3 of the
order their
continuation of the hosting of the event on 1 October
2022
at
the property
and
their
continued
hosting
of events at
the property up to date of the filing of the application, it is the
respondents' case that their conduct did no constitute
non
compliance with the order, since the event they hosted on 1 October
2022 and the further events thereafter, were not public
events as
stipulated in the order.
[25]
In
the
urgent
application
which served before Loubser J, a
letter of
demand which was addressed by the applicants' attorney of record to
the respondents was attached to the application as
annexure "K15",
which letter was dated 28 September 2022. In the said letter the
following was stated:
"2.
It is out instructions that you are intending on hosting an event at
House Phola Restaurant, with business address 1707
Petsana, Reitz on
1 October 2022.
3…
4.
It is
therefore our instructions to demand of you, as we hereby do, that
you refrain from hosting any entertainment event at House
Phola
Restaurant pending the finalisation of the Spoliation Application.
Furthermore, that you unreservedly retract any posters
and/or notices
made publicly for the said event…
"
5.
... Should we
not receive your timeous response hereto we hold instructions to
approach the court on an urgent basis."
[26]
A letter in response
to the last-mentioned letter from the respondents' legal practitioner
of first instance at the time addressed
to
the
applicants'
attorney
of
record,
dated
29 September 2022,
which was attached to the urgent application which served before
Loubser J as annexure "K18", stated,
inter
alia,
as
follows:
"We
have instructions to vehemently oppose your envisaged application
with punitive costs as it is both unmeritorious and lacks
urgency.
Our client will proceed with its operations and planned events."
[27]
In the urgent
application which followed subsequent to the respondents' refusal to
comply with the applicants' aforesaid demands,
which
served
before Loubser
J,
the first
applicant
stated as
follows in paragraph 10.1 of the founding affidavit:
“…
I
have a
prima
facie
right
and/or clear right to protect the reputation and goodwill of my
business which the respondent has infringed and will continue
to
infringe
if
the
y
are not
interdicted from hostin
g
the 1
October 2022
p
ublic
event and an
y
other
p
ublic
event
p
endin
g
the
finalisation of the a
pp
lication
for
s
p
oliation."
[28]
In
paragraph
10.3
of the
said
founding
affidavit
the
event was
even more
clearly described by referring to it as the
"1
October 2022 public event ('THE RE-OPENING?".
From a
perusal of
the
copies of the
posts on Facebook which were attached to the mentioned founding
affidavit as being the posts with regard to the said
event, more
specifically annexure "K12.2" thereto, it is evident that
the event was also described as the
"Reo
p
enin
g
of Official House
Phola Lounge". (Own emphasis)
[29]
It is
important to be mindful of the fact that the application which served
before Loubser was not only emailed to the respondents'
legal
representative at the time, but was also served personally upon both
respondents. In the absence of any allegation or indication
to the
contrary, it should therefore be accepted that the respondents duly
read and understood the application papers.
[30]
In
my
view
the event
which
was scheduled
for
1 October
2022
was so
clearly
described
in
the
founding
affidavit
of
the
application
which served before Loubser
J, read with the Facebook posts in relation thereto, that it must
have been evident to the respondents
that it is the said event which
had been interdicted.
The alleged
issue about a public event and a private event could therefore not
have caused the respondents not to
know that the
aforesaid
event of 1 October 2022 is the one which had been interdicted and
that the
"posters
and/or notices"
on
Facebook pertaining thereto were the ones which the respondents were
ordered to
"unreservedly
retract.
[31]
When
considering
the
defence raise
by
the
respondents regarding the 1 October 2022 and further events not to be
public events, I again return to consider the posts made
on Facebook
of which copies were attached to the founding affidavit of the
application which
served
before
Loubser J.
Annexure
"K11"
thereto
reflects
an
advertisement
regarding and
invitation to
the
said
event. It
lists
the "DJ's"
who were lined up to perform at the event and also reflects the
following "Event Information":
"Time:
Gates open at 4pm.
Venue:
House Phola Lounge (Petsana)
Rules:
No weapons, no under 25, dress smart, no outside booze allowed at the
venue, free wifi, 24-hour surveillance, tight security."
[32]
Annexure K12.1
to the said founding affidavit reflects a further Facebook post under
the name
"Petsana
House Pho/a Lounge"
and
under the heading
"About"
the
following description appears:
"House
Phola Lounge. Ifs
a
club
based in Reitz Petsana 9810 under management of Maseko and Masangani
Family. We also have SOUNDS OF
ELOKSHIN
WHO WILL CATER ALL THE MARKETING AND EVENTS MANAGEMENTS. DEEJAY FOMBO
AS OUR RESIDENT DEEJAY WILL SERVE GOOD MUSIC FOR
THE PLACE. WE ALSO
HAVE A CLOTHING BRAND OF CAVA ELOKSHIN BRANDING.
LETS
ENJOY MUSIC."
(sic)
[33]
The following
post was made on the relevant Facebook page, attached to the founding
affidavit filed in the present application.
as annexure "TK4.1":
"Please
note that the event is NOT and was NEVER a public event.
House
Phola is a Private Company and the event is Strictly Admission
Reserved and therefore not a public event.
As
we are all aware a public event are organised in terms of Public
Gathering Act as well as Safety At Sports and Recreation Events
Act.
All
patrons of House Phola are invited.
House
Phola is not interdicted from operating. We are interdicted from
holding public events which we don't intend to hold.
The
event is a Private and all House Phola patrons are invited. All
admitted persons will be stamped on entry.
Right
of Admission Reserved."
(sic)
[34]
The
post
on
the
Facebook
page
attached
to
the
present
application as
annexure
"TK5",
was apparently
made
after the
1
October 2022
event and reads as follows:
"We
would like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who broke their
schedule to find time to come and celebrate the
re-opening
of House Phola Lounge.
We
have heard your complaints about prices and we have re-adjusted them
accordingly.
We deeply
apologise for the inconvenience caused.
Let's meet again this
weekend at the only place to Phola!! Remember without you and yours
we are nothing.
Re
a leboha.
Rights
of admission were reserved."
(sic)
[35]
In my view it
is evident even from the abovementioned Facebook posts that the
public were invited to the event of 1 October 2022,
that
liquor
was to
be
sold, that
DJ's
were lined up
to
perform
at
the
event and that strict security arrangements were to be in place. With
regard to the general information regarding "House
Phola
Lounge", it is in my view clear that it operates as a club which
hosts public social events.
[36]
Even on the
first respondent's own version, as contained in the answering
affidavit and which I have already quoted earlier, they
have been
hosting events "as
part
of restaurant activity in terms of the licence";
hence,
events to which the public is invited.
[37]
In
HLB
International
(South
Africa)
{Pty)
Ltd
v
MWRK
Accountants
and Consultants
(Pty)
Ltd
2022 (5) SA 373
(SCA)
at paras [25] -
[29] the rules
and principles pertaining to the interpretation of court orders were
authoritatively stated:
"[25]
Since
Firestone
there have been significant developments in
the law relating to the interpretation of documents, both in this
country and in others
that follow similar rules to our own. The
modern approach to interpretation was set out thus by this court in
Natal Joint Municipal Pension Fund v Endumeni Municipality:
'Whatever
the nature of the document, consideration must be given to the
language used in the light of the ordinary rules of grammar
and
syntax; the
context
in which the provision appears; the apparent purpose to which it is
directed and the material known to those responsible
for its
production. Where more than one meaning is possible each possibility
must be weighed in the light of all these factors.
The process is
objective, not subjective. A sensible meaning is to be preferred to
one that leads to insensible or unbusinesslike
results or undermines
the purpose of the document.
The
"inevitable point of departure is the language of the provision
itself', read in context and having regard to the purpose
of the
provision and the background to the preparation and production of the
document.'
And
in
Bothma-Batho Transport v S Bothma
&
Seun Transport
this court made the point that '(t)he former distinction between
permissible background and surrounding circumstances, never very
clear, has fallen away'; that interpretation is now 'essentially one
unitary exercise'; and that it 'is no longer helpful to refer
to the
earlier approach'.
[26]
The now
well-established test on
the
interpretation of court orders
is this: 'The starting point is to determine the manifest purpose of
the order. In interpreting a judgment or order, the court's
intention
is to be ascertained primarily from the language of the judgment or
order in accordance with the usual, well-known rules
relating to the
interpretation of documents.
As
in
the
case of a document
the
judgment
or
order and the court's reasons for
giving
it
must be read as a whole in order to ascertain its intention.
'
[27]
The
manifest
purpose
of
the
judgment
is
to be determined by also
having regard
to the relevant background facts which culminated in it
being
made.
For as was
said in
KPMG
Chartered Accountants (SA) v Securefin Ltd and Another,
'context
is everything'.
[28]
A fairly
recent illustration of the linguistic, contextual and purposive
approach to the interpretation of a judgment or order is
to be found
in
Elan
Boulevard v Fnyn Investments,
in
which it was said that '(a)n order is merely the executive part of
the judgment and, to interpret it, it is necessary to read
the order
in the context of the judgment as a whole', and
–
'(a)
part of the "usual well-known rules" of interpretation,
according to Olivier JA, is –
"dat
mens jou nie meet blind staar teen die swart-op-wit woorde nie, maar
probeer vasstel wat die bedoeling en implikasie is
van wat gese is.
Dit is
j
uis
in hierdie
p
roses
waart
y
dens
die samehan
g
en
omrin
g
ende
omstandi
g
hede
relevant is."
'
[Footnotes omitted.]
Loosely
translated:
'One
should not stare blindly at the black-on-white words but try to
establish the meaning and implication of what is being said.
It
is
p
recisel
y
in this
p
rocess
that the context and surroundin
g
circumstances
are relevant."
'
(Own emphasis)
[38]
When the
background facts as set out in the application papers which served
before Loubser J are considered in totality, which facts
culminated
in the order, it is in my view evident that the purpose of the order
was to interdict the event of 1 October 2022, which
event was clearly
described in the application papers, the Facebook material in
relation thereto and all subsequent similar events
to be held at the
property. The order is to be interpreted accordingly.
[39]
There is
absolutely no basis upon which the respondents can allege that the
event of 1 October 2022 and the events thereafter, were
not public
events and were not prohibited by the interdictory order.
[40]
There was, in my
view, therefore clear non-compliance with the order by the
respondents beyond reasonable doubt.
The
respondents have not made any allegation that the said non
compliance was not wilful and ma/a
fide.
Especially
in view of the
clear
description of the event of 1 October 2022 as to which event was
interdicted,
the respondents' non-compliance
therewith
could not have been
bona
fide.
[41]
Despite the
very able arguments by Ms Ngubeni, on behalf of the respondents,
it
is
in my
view
evident beyond
reasonable
doubt that the
respondents have been deliberately failing to comply with the court
order and are therefore in contempt thereof.
The
sanction:
[42]
The following
was stated in
MT
v CT
2016 (4)
SA 193
(WCC) at para [52] with regard to a finding of contempt of
court:
"[52]
It has been repeatedly said that, aside from preserving the dignity
and moral authority of the institution of justice,
the purpose of
finding a party to be in contempt is to ensure compliance with the
order previously ignored. Most often the sanction
will contain a
punitive element (which is suspended either wholly or in part) on
condition that the order is complied with."
[43]
In
my view a fine
which is
suspended on
condition that the order is complied with, is an approptriate
sanction.
Costs:
[44]
The
postponement
of the
application on
11
October 2022
was due to the
fact that the application was not yet ripe for hearing. This type of
situation very often occurs in instances of
urgent applications and
are to be considered to be part of the application
process. I therefore
deem it
appropriate that those wasted costs are to be costs in the
appplication.
[45]
With regard to
the scale of costs, I agree with the submission by Ms Nyezi that a
punitive costs order as prayed for in the notice
of motion is
appropriate in order to show the court's disapproval of the
respondents'
recalcitrant
conduct.
Order:
[46]
The
following
order
is
consequently
made:
1.
Condonation
is
granted
for the
non-compliance
with the
Rules
pertaining to
form, service
and notice and the matter is heard as one of urgency in terms of Rule
6(12).
2.
The
respondents are declared to be in contempt of the order of Court
granted by this Court on 30 September 2022.
3.
The
respondents
are
ordered to
each
pay a
fine
of R10000.00
(ten thousand rand), the payment of which is suspended for the
time
period until
the
finalization
of
the
motion
proceedings in
this
Court
under case
number 4751/2022, on
condition that
the respondents comply with paragraph 4 of the Court order granted on
30 September 2022.
4.
The
respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application,
which
costs
include
the
reserved
costs
of
11
October 2022, and which
costs are to be paid on a scale as between attorney and client.
5.
The
applicants·
attorney of
record is
to
have this
order served upon
the
respondents,
the costs
of
which are
to
be paid
by
the
respondents, jointly and severally, payment by the one the other to
be absolved.
C
VAN ZYL,J
On
behalf of the applicants:
Adv. Z. Nyezi
Instructed
by
: Wesi
Attorneys Inc
Bloemfontein
On
behalf of the respondents:
Adv. T. Ngubeni
Instructed
by
:
Radebe
Attorneys
Bloemfontein