Jonker and Another v Stoffels (1222/09) [2009] ZANCHC 55 (30 October 2009)

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: High Court, Northern Cape Division, Kimberley
>>
2009
>>
[2009] ZANCHC 55
|

|

Jonker and Another v Stoffels (1222/09) [2009] ZANCHC 55 (30 October 2009)

Reportable:
YES / NO
Circulate
to Judges: YES / NO
Circulate
to Magistrates: YES / NO
Circulate
to Regional Magistrates: YES / NO
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(Northern Cape,
Kimberley)
Case No: 1222/09
Case Heard: 20/10/2009
Date Delivered: 30/10/2009
In
the matter:
J
H JONKER 1
st
Applicant
H
J J A JONKER 2
nd
Applicant
v
FRANCOIS
C STOFFELS Respondent
JUDGMENT
KGOMO JP:
Having regard to my
order quoted below, in particular paras 4 and 5 thereof which are
intended to regulate the respondent’s
future access to his
daughter, 'C", I should not be writing a judgment. However
this has been necessitated by an unfortunate
turn of events which
have been precipitated by respondent’s (“Stoffels”)
forum-shopping or forum-hopping with the singular
motive of avoiding
the consequences of the order of this Court contained in the
judgment delivered on Friday 02 October 2009.
I refer to the
parties by their names in light of the multiple applications brought
in this Court and the Western Cape High
Court(“CPD”).
On the aforesaid date
I made the following order:
“
1. Custody and guardianship of
the minor child 'C" S, born on 23 January 2006, is awarded to
the applicants, Mrs Jacoba Hendrina
Jonkers and Hans Johannes Jacobus
Albertus Jonkers.
2. The applicants are awarded
full parental responsibilities and rights as contemplated in
s18(2)(a) – (d) of the
Children’s Act, 38 of 2005
, in respect of
the child, which incorporate to care for the child, to maintain
contact with her, to contribute to her maintenance
and generally to
act as her guardians.
3. The permanent residency of the
child is awarded to the applicants.
4. The respondent, Mr Francois
Christiaan Stoffels, as father of the child, has the right of
reasonable access to the child the
terms of which access must be
drawn up by counsel with the aid of the Family Advocate, Mr A H Nel;
the psychologists Dr J D Stemmet
(representing the applicants) and Ms
Mandi Bouwer, representing the respondent.
5. If agreement concerning the
terms of the respondent’s access rights is reached an order by
consent should be obtained in the
Chambers of the Judge President at
09h00 on Tuesday 20 October 2009 or otherwise be argued in court on
the very stipulated date
and time.
6. There shall be no order as to
costs.”
The 09h00 time was
set because a part-heard civil matter was proceeding before me on 20
October 2009. On this latter date para
4 of the Court order quoted
above had not been complied with due to the subterfuge employed by
Stoffels in a manner adverted
to more comprehensively below.
On 03 October 2009,
thus a day after the delivery of judgment of this Court, Stoffels
obtained an order on urgency with the following
terms before Bozalek
J in the Western Cape High Court.
“
2. That, pending the filing of
the Applicant’s Notice of Appeal to be lodged in the Appeal of the
Judgment under Northern Cape
High Court, case number 1222/08(or 09)
on or before 9 October 2009, the Court Order therein dated 02/10/2009
(involving the above
parties) is stayed so that the minor child, 'C",
shall remain in the Applicant’s care.
3. The Order in (2) above shall
lapse upon the filing of the Notice of Appeal aforesaid or at 4.00pm
on 9 October 2009, whichever
occurs first.
4. This Order shall be served on
the First and Second Respondents on 5 October 2009 by way of fax to
their attorney of record.”
The purported reason
for Stoffels’ curious approach to the CPD emerges from a letter
written on 08 October 2009 by attorney
Odette Deysel of the firm of
attorneys Haupt & Van Zyl of Paarl to the applicants’ (“the
Jonkers”) correspondent attorneys
in Kimberley Messrs Elliot,
Maris, Wilmans & Hay. The entire content is reproduced:
“
Ons het opdrag by ons kliënt
ontvang om die volgende regstappe te neem:
a) Appèl aan te teken teen
die bevel van Kgomo RP vir die redes wat sal blyk uit die aansoek om
verlof om te appèleer;
en
b) `n Dringende aansoek te loods
om `n verysing van die bepalings van die bevel gegee deur Kgomo RP.
In hierdie verband is dit
ons advies dat beide die hooggeregshof in
Kimberley (waar die bevel toegestaan is) en die hooggeregshof in
Kaapstad (waar 'C"
tans woonagtig is) jurisdiksie het om so `n
aansoek aan te hoor. Dit is ons kliënt se instruksies dat die
wysigingsaansoek
in Kaapstad gebring moet word uit hoofde daarvan
dat:
(a) 'C" hier woonagtig is en
(b) dit vir ons kliënt goedkoper sal wees om uit hierdie hof te
litigeer.
In die lig van sy instruksies het
ons die kliniese sielkundige, Dr Rosa Bredenkamp (wat welbekend is in
hierdie Hof en baie forensiese
ervaring het), opdrag gegee om op `n
dringende basis `n volledige ondersoek te doen na Cursin se beste
belang (spesifiek na waar
haar primêre woonplek moet wees). Sy
het opdrag ontvang om haar ondersoek in twee fases af te handel soos
volg:
(i) Eerstens het sy opdrag om
slegs onderhoude met 'C" te voer en `n assessering te doen van
haar binding met die primêre
figure in haar lewe. Sy het
aangedui dat sy 'C" sal sien (en die nodige assessering sal
doen) op Donderdag 15 Oktober 2009,
Vrydag 16 Oktober 2009, Donderdag
22 Oktober 2009 en Vrydag 23 Oktober 2009. Sy sal hierna `n
tussentydse verslag beskikbaar maak
ten opsigte van die resultate van
haar assessering teen Vrydag 30 Oktober 2009.
(ii) Tydens die tweede fase van
haar ondersoek het sy opdrag om `n volledige assessering te doen ten
opsigte van welke party die
geskikte persoon sal wees om die primêre
versorging van 'C" waar te neem. Ons sal dit waardeer indien u
kliënte
sal instem om hul volle samewerkig te gee tot hierdie
proses en deel te neem aan sodanige assessering.
In die lig van bogenoemde het ons
opdrag om hierdie skrywe aan u te rig en u kliënte te versoek
om hul instemming te gee tot
die volgende:
1) U kliënte sal hul volle
samewerking gee tot die asesseringsproses en sal konsultasies met Dr
Bredenkamp bywoon;
2) 'C" sal tot 30 October
2009 aanbly in die huis van ons kliënt sodat Dr Bredenkamp die
eerste fase van haar assessering
kan afhandel waarna haar primêre
woonplek hangende die afhandeling van Dr Bredenkamp se ondersoek by
ooreenkoms of deur `n
hofbevel gereguleer kan word.
Aangesien beide u kliënte en
ons kliënt dit nie finansieel breed het nie, wil ons u
vriendelik en dringend versoek om
in te stem tot bovermelde voorstel
aangesien dit vir beide partye aansienlike regskoste sal bespaar.
Aangesien Dr Bredenkamp opdrag
ontvang om eerste vir 'C" te
assesseer beteken dit dat sy sonder enige “beïnvloeding”
deur besigtiging van die aansoeke
of verslae wat in die verlede bekom
is of onderhoude met enige van die partye `n assessering kan doen wat
gemik is op wat op die
huidige oomblik in 'C" se beste belang
sal wees. U is welkom om haar telefonies te kontak en uself van haar
onpartydigheid,
kwalifikasies en ervaring te vergewis op 021 914
3110.
Ons verneem graag van u voor/op
Vrydag 9 Oktober 2009 om 10h00.”
In the meantime
Stoffels has, in order to avoid the lapsing of Bozalek J’s order
that “stayed” the order of this Court pending
the filing of a
Notice of Appeal on or before 09 October 2009, filed his Notice of
Appeal with the Registrar of this Court on
Friday 09 October 2009,
before the cut-off time.
In reaction to the
steps taken by Stoffels in the CPD the Jonkers brought an
application to be heard simultaneously with the directive
(in para 4
thereof) which envisaged the fashioning of the manner in which
Stoffels was to exercise his right of access to 'C"
on 20
October 2009 at 09h00. The relief sought is the following:
“
1. Die respondent (Stoffels)
gelas sal word om van verdere vertragingstaktiek en/of minagtende
optrede ten aansien van die bogenoemde
agbare Hof se bevel van 2
Oktober 2009 te weerhou.
2. Die respondent gelas word om
onmiddelik en wel binne 3 dae vanaf datum van hierdie aansoek,
naamlik 20 Oktober 2009, uitvoering
sal gee aan paragraaf 22 van die
bogenoemde agbare Hof se bevel van 2 Oktober 2009 en wel as volg:
2.1 Ten opsigte van paragrawe 1
tot 3:
Gemelde minderjarige kind, 'C"
binne 3 dae aan die applikante terug besorg sal word te Keimoes.
2.2 Ten opsigte van paragraaf 4:
Respondent in samehang met die
applikante binne 3 dae sal begin om die bevel van die agbare Hof ten
uitvoer te bring.
2.3 Ten opsigte van paragraaf 5:
Die agbare Hof `n verdere datum
sal bepaal ten einde die oogmerk wat beoog is vir bereiking teen 20
Oktober 2009, te bereik.
3. Die respondente se aansoek om
verlof tot appèl, soos geliaseer, sal oorstaan tot dieselfde
datum as diè vervat
in paragraaf 2.3 hierbo.
4. Respondent aanspreeklik is vir
die koste van hierdie aansoek.”
Stoffels initially
opposed this application. His contention emanate from the Answering
Affidavit filed by his attorney Ms Odette
Deysel for doing so. I
quote the most significant aspects thereof:
8.1
“9. Ek
het meneer Gerrie van der Merwe versoek om `n dringende aansoek te
bring in bogenoemde Agbare Hof ten einde die uitvoering
van die bevel
op te skort hangende die liassering van die Kennisgewing van Appèl
wat in terme van die reels van die Wet
op Hooggeregshowe, Wet 59 van
1959, outomaties die bevel sou opskort. Meneer Van der Merwe het
egter meegedeel dat die Agbare
Hof in reses is en dat daar
waarskynlik nie `n advokaat beskikbaar sou wees om so `n aansoek te
argumenteer oor die naweek nie.”
This statement is
preposterous, far-fetched and ridiculous. A party cannot create
jurisdiction synthetically in another forum on
some outlandish belief
that counsel might not be available to argue his case. Besides, Mr
Van der Merwe, referred to, is a senior
attorney who appears
regularly in this Court and has argued complex matters, which the
case at hand, in which he appeared in any
case, is not.
8.2
“13.
Dit is korrek dat daar geem betekening van die stukke persoonlik op
Applikante was nie, maar speel Applikante nie heeltemal
oop kaarte
met bogenoemde Agbare hof in hierdie verband nie. ”
Ms Deysel states that
the Jonkers avoided service of process for the application in the
CPD, hence the order was obtained on an
unopposed basis.
8.3
“21. Dit
is korrek dat die aansoek gebring is met die oogmerk dat daar nie
uitvoering gegee word aan bogemelde Agbare Hof se bevel
nie, maar
ontken ek dat die aansoek gebring is met die doel om die reël te
misbruik en die Agbare Hof se bevel te omseil”
8.4
“31.
Dit
is nie korrek dat die Agbare hof alreeds beslis het oor wat in die
beste belang van 'C" tans is nie.
Bogenoemde Agbare
Hof het `n beslissing gemaak gegrond op die geloof dat 'C"
primer by die Applikante woonagtig was wat sedert
April 2009 nie meer
die geval was nadat die partye aktief die intergrasieproses, by
ooreenkoms, in werking gestel het nie. Die
uitnodiging wat gerig was
aan Applikante in die gemelde skrywe het ten doel om ondersoek in te
stel wat tans in die beste belang
van 'C" is.”
(My
emphasis).
That an attorney can
suggest, if she has read my judgment and order, that no decision has
been made as regards what is in the best
interest of the child 'C"
is simply mischievous. If no such decision has been made then the
matter is still pending in this
Court –
lis pendens
. If the
matter is still pending what is it that Stoffels is seeking to appeal
against in his Application for Leave to Appeal?
Before 09h00 on
Tuesday 20 October 2009 Adv Japie Schreuder and his attorney, for
the Jonkers, brought to my attention a letter
dated 14 October 2009
from Stoffels’ instructing attorneys, Haupt & Van Zyl also
authored by Ms Deysel to the Jonkers attorneys,
Elliot, Maris,
Wilmans & Hay which reads:
“
Bostaande aangeleentheid
verwys sowel as ons Kennisgewing tot verlof om Appèl wat
geliaseer is.
In terme van die Wet op
Hooggeregshowe, Wet 59 van 1959, wens ons u daarop te wys dat die
liassering van bogemelde kennisgewing
die uitvoering van die bevel
gemaak deur sy Edele Regter-President Kgomo op 2 Oktober 2009,
outomaties opskort.
In die lig daarvan sal daar
dus geen verskyning namens ons kliënt op 20 Oktober 2009 wees in
terme van bogemelde bevel nie,
aangesien die uitvoering in hierdie
verband dus ook outomaties opgeskort is.
”
(My
emphasis).
Mr Van der Merwe was
blissfully oblivious of the existence of the letter just quoted in
para 9 above. He attended the hearing
to present Stoffels’ case,
whatever his instructions may have been. Having read the letter
shown to him in Court he respectfully
disassociated himself on
procedural grounds from what his instructing attorneys submitted, by
letter for that matter. I agree.
In addition Ms Deysel’s
attitude and conduct is testimony to her utter ignorance of the
Rules of Court and her abject discourtesy
to this Court by agitating
non-appearance.
In light of the latest
developments I postponed the hearing (from 20 October 2009) to
Thursday 22 October 2009 at 09h00 (my part-heard
was still running)
and directed that the parties file short Heads of Argument to enable
me to understand crisply what it is that
the parties wanted done or
not done.
On Wednesday 21
October 2009 in the place of the Heads of Argument Stoffels’
Kimberley attorneys, Van de Waal & Partners,
understandably
filed a Notice of Withdrawal as attorneys of record. They had no
option because their mandate had been terminated
and in fact this
was also done by way of a supplementary affidavit to confirm it.
Stoffels also withdrew his opposition to the
relief sought in the
Notice of Motion quoted in para 7 above whereby the Jonkers seek to
enforce the implementation of my order
issued on 02 October 2009.
I wish to deal with a
few points raised in the supplementary affidavit (dated 21 October
2009) as they have a bearing on some
of the orders that I propose
making including why the application for Leave to Appeal cannot be
retained on the court roll as
a mere subterfuge to enable Stoffels
to obtain the relief sought in the CPD and to discard the
application as soon as that is
done. If the application should fail
the Leave to Appeal becomes the fall back position. The Jonkers can
also not be frustrated
from executing the responsibility enjoined
and the benefit of the order accorded to them and the child 'C"
by this Court.
Ms Deysel explains (in
the supplementary affidavit dated 21 October 2009) what she meant to
convey in her letter of 14 October
2009 why there will be no
appearance for her client, Stoffels. She states:
“
5.2 On the 9
th
October 2009 Respondent filed his Notice in his Application for Leave
to Appeal in the above Honourable Court. In terms of Rule
49(11) of
the High Court Act, Act 59 of 1959, the operation of the execution of
the order in question was automatically suspended
pending the
decision of such appeal.
5.3 On the 14
th
of
October 2009 I addressed the abovementioned letter to the Applicants’
attorneys of record as a mere courtesy indicating that
the rules
prescribed that the execution of the order is automatically
suspended, which made an appearance on 20 October 2009 unnecessary;
5.4 On the 16
th
October 2009 the Applicants filed their latest application asking the
above Honourable Court to order the immediate execution of
the order
granted on 2
nd
of October 2009. This application was also
brought under rule 49(11);
5.5 The letter of 14 October 2009
thus did not deal with the latest application and did not state that
my client would not appear
in Court on that matter.
6. At no stage did I indicate to
the attorney of record of Applicants that we will disregard the
orders of the High Court of the
Northern Cape based on orders made by
the local High Court. I merely pointed out to the Applicants’
attorney of record what
the rules governing all High Courts in South
Africa prescribed.
7. Furthermore, at the time of
the writing of the abovementioned letter, the current application by
the Applicants had not even
been brought. The current application
was only served on Respondent’s corresponding attorney two days
later, late on the 16
th
of October 2009.
8. It is my submission that
neither I, nor Respondent, acted with disrespect for the above
Honourable Court.”
This explanation only
serves to obfuscate the clear meaning of the letter.
On 19 October 2009
Stoffels obtained the following Rule Nisi from Yesiko J of the CPD
on urgency:
“
2. A Rule Nisi is issued in
terms whereof Respondents are called upon to submit reasons on
Friday, 27 November 2009, before this
Honourable Court why the
following order should not be made final:
2.1 Applicant shall be a holder
of full parental responsibilities and rights in respect of the minor
child 'C" STOFFELS (born
on 23 January 2006) (presently 3 years
and 9 months)(“the minor child”), in terms of the provisions of
the Children’s Act,
38 of 2005 (“the Children’s Act”) as set
out hereunder;
2.2 The minor child shall reside
primarily with Applicant, who shall be her primary carer;
2.3 Applicant shall make those
decisions as set out in
section 31(1)(b)(ii)
,(iii) and (iv) of the
Children’s Act in
the minor child’s interests;
2.4 The minor child shall have
such contact [with] First and Second Respondents as may be
recommended by Dr Rosa Bredenkamp pending
finalisation of this
application and thereafter;
2.5 First and Second Respondents
shall co-operate in the investigation to be conducted by Dr Rosa
Bredenkamp regarding the best
interest of the minor child in the
implementation of a parenting plan.
3. Paragraphs 2.1 to 2.4 operate
as an interim order pending the finalisation of the application.
4. The Applicant is granted leave
to supplement his papers by the filing of a further affidavit in the
event that this application
is opposed.”
In consequence of
Yesiko J’s order quoted above (para 15) Stoffels filed a further
supplementary affidavit consisting of 169
pages: Over the top for
someone who pleads financial improvidence, makes no appearance and
withdraws his opposition. The entire
CPD application is
incorporated. It would be inappropriate to express myself relative
to what is pending in the CPD concerning,
amongst other things the
issues of
lis pendens
, jurisdiction, what is in the best
interest of the child etc. However, that Court will have due regard
to the fact that potentially
two conflicting and/or concurrent
orders may be issued in two jurisdictions in respect of the same
child and same subject-matter.
On his further
participation in this Court Stoffels state:
“
10. As indicated above, I am
in no position financially to pay any further legal costs in this
matter and therefore am also not
in a position to instruct Mr Gerrie
van der Merwe or a advocate to argue the matter on the 22
nd
of October 2009 before the above Honourable Court. I was again
forced to make loans with friends and family members to secure
the
services of Dr Bredenkamp.
11. In light of the above
mentioned I instructed Mr Gerrie van der Merwe to withdraw as my
attorney of record and instructed my
attorney not to proceed in the
opposition of the above application. I am also advised that:
11.1
The matter before
the above Honourable court has been finalized and I don’t need a
service address anymore in terms of the court
rules
.
(My
emphasis).
11.2 The current application,
even if successful, will de facto be stayed by the order that was
made by [the] Honourable Justice
Yekiso in the Cape High Court on the
19
th
of October 2009. This order amended
the order given by the above Honourable court on the 2
nd
of October 20009 and granted me primary residency of 'C".
12. In light of all the above
facts I am forced to withdraw my opposition of the urgent Application
brought by the Applicants of
the 20
th
of
October 2009 asking for the immediate execution of the order granted
on the 2
nd
of October 2009 even though I do
not believe that such relief is in 'C"’s best interests.”
If Stoffels carried
out the order of this Court he would not have incurred the costs in
the CPD and the matter would have been
finalised on 20 October 2009.
He saved no costs because Mr Van der Merwe appeared for him on the
stipulated date. Curiously in
the para 8.4 breath of this judgment
Stoffels states that no final decision has been taken by this Court
concerning 'C"’s
custody, however in the para 17 breath
(emphasised) he states the opposite because it suits him.
The conduct of the
respondent as set out hereinbefore unquestionably attracts costs on
an attorney and client scale for 20 October
2009 and 22 October
2009.
There being no
opposition and no appearance by the respondent (Stoffels) the
Jonkers are entitled to part of the relief claimed
as set out in the
order below. The application for Leave to Appeal stands to be
struck from the roll.
In the result I make
the following order:
1. The Application for
Leave to Appeal by the respondent (Mr Francois Christiaan Stoffels)
is struck from the roll with costs.
The application may only be
re-enrolled upon a substantive application being made and on good
cause shown.
2. The respondent
(Stoffels) is ordered to deliver 'C" to the home of the
applicants (Mrs Jacoba Hendrina Jonker and Mr Hans
Johannes Jocobus
Albertus Jonker) at Keimoes, Northern Cape, within 7 (seven) days of
this order failing which the Sheriff of the
Western Cape and/or any
of his/her deputies is/are directed to remove 'C" from the
respondent (Stoffels) and hand her over
to the applicants (the
Jonkers).
3. That the orders in
paragraphs 4 and 5 of the judgment delivered by the Northern Cape
High Court on 02 October 2009 will take
effect and must be complied
with within 10 (ten) days of 'C" having been handed over to the
Jonkers couple. The order in
question are the following:
“4. The respondent, Mr
Francois Christiaan Stoffels, as father of the child has the right of
reasonable access to the child the
terms of which access must be
drawn up by counsel with the aid of the Family Advocate, Mr A H Nel;
the psychologists Dr J D Stemmet
(representing the applicants) and
Ms Mandi Bouwer, representing the respondent.
5. If agreement concerning the
terms of the respondent’s access rights is reached an order by
consent should be obtained in the
Chambers of the Judge President at
09h00 on Tuesday 20 October 2009 or otherwise be argued in court on
the very stipulated date
and time.”
4. The respondent is to
pay the costs of this application on the attorney and client scale.
5. The applicants are
granted leave to bring an application for Contempt of Court against
the respondent on the same papers suitably
supplemented.
________________________
F
DIALE KGOMO
JUDGE
PRESIDENT
NORTHERN
CAPE DIVISION
For Applicant
: Adv J J Schreuder
On Behalf
of:
ELLIOTT, MARIS, WILMANS & HAY
For the First
Respondent: No Appearance.