About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2021
>>
[2021] ZAGPPHC 293
|
|
Mmatau and Others v Ga-Rankuwa United Taxi Association (85186/19) [2021] ZAGPPHC 293 (13 April 2021)
In
the High Court of South Africa
Gauteng
Local
Division
Pretoria.
Case
no. 85186/19
Matome
Mmatau
1
st
Applicant
Thabo
Matlou
2
nd
Applicant
Marcelino
Matola
3
rd
Applicant
Benny
Ndlovu
4
th
Applicant
Raymond
Masango
5
th
Applicant
Thapelo
Mokgatle
6
th
Applicant
And
Ga-Rankuwa
United Taxi
Association
Respondent
Judgment.
LI
Vorster
AJ
:
1.
The Applicants apply for an order in the following terms :-
1.
That the Respondent be found guilty of being in contempt of a Court
order granted 25 November 2019:
2
That the Respondent
be directed to purge such contempt within
48 hours Of this order;
3
Should Respondent
fail
to
purge
such
contempt
that
the
Respondent
be
committed to prison
alternatively to payment of a
fine;
4That
an independent auditor be appointed to audit all books and accounts
of Respondent and provide an audited financial report
within 30 days
or any further period allowed by the court
5.
That the Respondent
pays the costs of
the Applicant
on
the scale of
attorney
and
client.
2.
The Respondent opposes the
relief sought
by
Applicant
and
asks for dismissal
of the application
with
costs
on a scale
of
attorney
and
client.
3.
Before I
deal with the merits
of
the
application I
must
say something about the pray
4
r
seeking
to
commit
the Respondent to
jail. The
Applicants
all
make much of the
fact that they are esteemed members of the Respondent Are they
opting
to go
to
jail?
If not who must go
to
jail?
I
mention this because
the formulation of the application and the founding affidavit gives
rise
to
the inference that very little if any thought went
into
the planning of this
application
4.
The
Applicants
allege that
the
Respondent
committed
contempt by
violating
a
court
order. The
court
order
in question
was
made by agreement
between
the
parties
during 1919
when
the
Respondent
approached
the
court
on a
n
urgent
basis
claiming
interdictory
relief against the
applicants.
By
agreement
an
order was
made
inter alia compelling
the
executive committee
of
Respondent
to
file their reports
dealing with thwir
terms
of
service
on
28
February
2020.
5.
There
is
no
mention
of
audited
reports
in the
court
order. It follows
that
the
allegation
based
on failure
to deliver
audited reports
is
based on
a
faulty
assumption
that
the
court
order compelled
the
delivery
of
audited
reports.
6.
There
is
no
substance
in the
application,
The
Respondents
asked
for a punitive costs order.
In my
view
that request is
justified. The
application is
so
devoid
of
s
u
bstance
that it
smacks of
abuse
of
process.
In
the premises of the
aforegoing I
make
the following order: and
The
application is
dismissed with costs
on
the
scale of
attorney and
client.
LI
Vorster AJ
1
3/4/21
Counsel:
For Responden
t
s
Attorney
A.
Viakazi.