SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN CAPE DIVISION,
CAPE TOWN
Case No: 17760/2019
In the matter between:
R[...] K[...] Applicant
and
I[...] K[...] Respondent
JUDGMENT
___________________________________________________________________
ANDREWS, AJ
Introduction
[1] The powerful introductory remarks by the Constitutional Court in Pheko and
Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality 1 sets the tone for these
proceedings:
1 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) [2015] ZACC 10.
‘The rule of law, a foundational value of the Constitution, requires that the
dignity and authority of the courts be upheld. This is crucial, as the capacity of
the courts to carry out their functions depends upon it. As the Constitution
commands, orders and decisions issued by a court bind all persons to whom
and organs of state to which they apply, and no person or organ of state may
interfere, in any manner, with the functioning of the courts. It follows from this
that disobedience towards court order s or decisions risks rendering our courts
impotent and judicial authority a mere mockery. The effectiveness of court
orders or decisions is substantially determined by the assurance that they will
be enforced.’
[2] This is an opposed application in terms of which the Applicant seeks an order
that t he Registrar of this Court is authorised to issue a Writ of Commitment for
Contempt of Court, committing the Respondent to imprisonment for contempt of
court for a period of 30 (thirty) days.
Factual Background
[3] An interim maintenance order was granted, pendente lite, on 12 April 2017,
under case number 3965/2017, which terms included inter alia:
(a) The Respondent was ordered to pay the amount of R22 000 per month to the
Applicant commencing on 28 April 2017;
(b) The Respondent was to pay the Applicant the amount of R48 000 before 25
May 2017;
(c) The Respondent would continue to pay reasonable expenses relating to the
property inclusive of the bond payments , r ates and tax es, w ater and
electricity, g arden services , kleen bin, security, DSTV, all reasonable
maintenance to the property and garden , Applicant’s cell phone contract and
to arrange for data to the value of R1400 to be loaded onto the Applicant’s
dongle within 7 days from date of the order;
(d) By allowing the Applicant to use the Toyota Fortuner motor vehicle;
(e) By allowing the Applicant the use of the petrol account in the Respondent’s
name to the value of R3 000 per month;
(f) By paying all the reasonable maintenance, repa irs, financing insurance and
licensing costs on the vehicle currently in the Applicant’s possession and
(g) That the Respondent will contribute towards the Applicant’s legal costs
incurred in the sum of R20 000 on or before 7 April 2017 and R20 000 on or
before 12 May 2017.
[4] It is alleged that the Respondent failed to comply with the court order in
several respects. The Applicant initiated contempt proceedings which culminated in
the following order being made by Cloete J (“the Cloete J” order), on 03 September
2020:
(a) That the Respondent is declared to be in contempt of the order of this court
granted on 12 April 2017 under case number 3965/2017;
(b) That the Respondent is sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 30 (thirty)
calendar days, wholly suspended on condition that:
(1) The full amount owing to the Applicant in terms of the aforesaid order is
paid by the Respondent by 31 October 2020; and
(2) The Respondent resumes payment of what is due and/or owing in
terms of such order with effect from 28 November 2020; and
(c) That the Respondent shall pay the costs of this application on the scale as
between attorney and client, including any reserved cost orders.
[5] The Respondent thereafter lodged an application to appeal the order, which
application was dismissed with costs. Thereafter, the Respondent lodged an
application for leave to appeal the order at the Supreme Court of Appeal, which
application was also dismissed with costs. This was followed by an application for
leave to appeal the order at the Constitutional Court, which application was also
dismissed with costs.
[6] There was an attempt to enter into a settlement arrangement which proposal
was not accepted by the Applicant as the Respondent had not resumed payment of
the monthly maintenance amount, save for one payment of R22 000 on 7 December
2021. As at the time of instituting these proceedings the Respondent was in arrears
in the amount of R980 054.20. The Applicant approached the Registrar to issue a
Writ of Commitment, but was informed that she was unable to issue the writ because
the Court Order does not specifically authorise her to do so. There after, an attempt
was made to obtain the writ by way of a Chamberbook application, however, the
Applicant was directed that the order sought is to be obtained in the ordinary course ,
thus giving rise to this present application.
[7] The Respondent was finally sequestrated by Standard Bank on 23 January
2023. The Respondent was placed under curatorship by an order of court granted on
30 October 2023 under case number 17174/2023. Advocate Paul Tredoux N.O. was
appointed as the curator ad litem on 25 April 2024 whose powers were extended to
enable him to represent the Respondent in both the divorce and committal
proceedings.
The Applicable Legal Principles
[8] The law on “civil” contempt of court is well established. The seminal judgment
of Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (supra)2 the
Constitutional Court in a unanimous judgment explains what is meant by civil
contempt as follows:
2 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) [2015] ZACC 10 at para 30.
‘The term civil contempt is a form of contempt outside of the court, and is used
to refer to contempt by disobeying a court order. Civil contempt is a crime, and
if all of the elements of criminal contempt are satisfied, civil contempt can be
prosecuted in criminal proceedings, which characteristically lead to committal.
Committal for civil contempt can, however, also be ordered in civil proceedings
for punitive or coercive reasons. Civil contempt proceedings are typically
brought by a disgruntled litigant aiming to compel another litigant to comply with
the previous order granted in its favour. However, under the discretion of the
presiding officer, when contempt occurs a court may initiate contempt
proceedings mero motu.’
[9] Bannatyne v Bannatyne 3 deals with the competence of a court to enforce
money judgments by way of contempt proceedings:
‘[18] Although money judgments cannot ordinarily be enforced by contempt
proceedings, it is well established that maintenance orders are in a special
category in which such relief is competent.’
Parties Principal Submissions
On behalf of the Applicant
[10] No Heads of Argument were prepared by Counsel for the Applicant, having
been instructed a day before the hearing. In the main, it was submitted that the
judgment of Cloete J, speaks for itself and that there was no need to rehash what
was already argued before the court declared the Respondent to be in contempt of
the court order dated 12 April 2017.
On behalf of the Respondent
[11] The Respondent admitted that the Rule 43 Court Order was taken by
agreement on 12 April 2017. The Respondent initially complied with the terms of the
3 (CCT18/02) [2002] ZACC 31 at para 18.
said Court Order, but stopped when he encountered financial difficulties. The
Respondent was finally seque strated on 23 January 2023. It was submitted that by
virtue of him being declared insolvent, he was divested of all his assets which now
vests in the Trustee by direction of the Master as envisaged in terms of Section 20 of
the Insolvency Act4. In other w ords, the Respondent no longer has control of any of
his assets.
[12] It was placed on record that t he Respondent has no source of income,
except for receiving a SASSA grant. The Respondent essentially relies on his
children to support him and d id not in any event have the wherewithal to make
payment. Counsel on behalf of the Respondent asserted that it would not be
appropriate for the Court to give effect to the suspended sentence as it would
ultimately not achieve any purpose because the Respon dent is unable to pay. In
addition, it was submitted that the Respondent has significant health challenges and
that subjecting him to incarceration would be cruel and unusual in view of his
personal circumstances namely that he is 73 years old; has no inco me and suffers
health challenges which includes a heart condition, diabetes, hypertension,
cholesterol and sleep apnoea which requires medical apparatus to enable him to
sleep. The Respondent had a triple bypass in 1996 and a further bypass in April
2021. In addition, t he Respondent has, over the years, had 14 stents which were
surgically inserted. In September 2023, the Respondent attempted to take his own
life. He is current on antidepressant medication.
[13] It appears that the Respondent’s legal representat ives have contacted the
Department of Correctional Services to establish whether the prison facility is able to
accommodate a person with the medical challenges presented by the Respondent,
but seemingly, those attempts were unsuccessful. It was argued tha t the effect of
incarceration is therefore likely to present a significant risk to the well -being of the
Respondent.
Discussion
4 Section 20 of the Insolvency Act 24 of 1936:
‘(1) The effect of the sequestration of the estate of an insolvent shall be—
(a) to divest the insolvent of his estate and to vest it in the Master until a trustee has been
appointed, and, upon the appointment of a trustee, to vest the estate in him…’
[14] It is apposite to consider the chronology of events leading up to these
proceedings. The parties were married to each other on 16 May 2008. The
Respondent instituted divorce proceedings in 2013. In Ma rch 2014, the parties
attempted reconciliation and in 2016, the Respondent permanently vacated the
former common home, whereafter the divorce proceedings were revived. In or about
2017, the Applicant launched a Rule 43 application which culminated in an order by
agreement being taken on 12 April 2017 in terms of which the Respondent agreed to
undertake various maintenance obligations as per the terms of the court order
referenced earl ier in this judgment. During 2018, the Respondent launched an
application in terms of Rule 43(6) for a reduction of his maintenance obligations in
terms of the order which was opposed.
[15] The Rule 43(6) application was at some stage removed from the roll and
never re -enrolled as the parties were attempting to settle the divorce and ancillary
matters in its entirety. It is apparent that the Rule 43(6) application did not reach its
conclusion. It appears that the Respondent had substantially complied with the Rule
43 order until about 28 April 2019 whereafter Respondent defaulted. The Applicant
instituted contempt proceedings which were heard on 11 August 2020. Cloete J, on
3 September 2020 declared the Respondent in contempt of the order granted on 12
April 2017. This was followed by various unsuccessful leave to appeal applications
as mentioned at the outset of the judgment.
[16] It bears mentioning that these proceedings were enrolled
contemporaneously with the divorce action. This court finalised the divorce action on
5 June 2024. The parties entered into a settlement agreement pertaining to the
proprietary consequences, after protracted litigation.
[17] The purpose of these proceedings is not to revisit the issues already
ventilated at the contempt hearing before Cloete J, as the court has already provided
a full written judgment with a sanction which was subject to certain conditions. There
is no room to doubt that the finding of Cloet e J was premised, in her well -reasoned
and comprehensive judgment that the Respondent’s conduct constituted contempt
on the basis that the Respondent had an intention to defeat the course of justice. 5 It
is uncontroverted that the Respondent has breached the suspended conditions of
Cloete J’s order, which under Section 165 (5) 6 of the Constitution, the Respondent
was by operation of law bound to obey.
[18] The Respondent was finally sequestrated on 23 January 2023, seemingly
after all his failed attempts to appeal the judgment of Cloete J. Whilst I do not make a
finding that the sequestration was perhaps engineered as a further way of evading
his court ordered obligations, the timing of it leaves one wondering. Be that as it
may, the de facto position that the Respondent finds himself in is that he has , since
the Cloete J order, been sequestrated.
[19] It is trite that an order sequestrating a debtor’s estate is one affecting his
status and is accordingly a judgment in rem; that is, a judgment determining an issue
of right, status or property in a way binding persons in general. It is not a judgment in
personam.7 This ultimately means that the insolvent, in this case, the Respondent
cannot make a valid payment from his estate. In fact, the divesting takes place
already from the time that the provisional order for sequestration is granted.
[20] The consequence of the Respondent’s insolvent estate when it is vested in
the trustee, will remain so vested until ‘the insolvent become reinvested therewith in
consequence of the acceptance of an offer of composition by his creditors or until
rehabilitation.’8 It is trite that that sequestration does not terminate an obligation in
regard to the maintenance. Furthermore, a claim for arrear maintenance due up to
date of sequestration must be proved as a concurrent claim against the estate. Any
claim for amounts due afte r the sequestration of the estate cannot be made against
the estate but may be enforced against the personal estate of the insolvent.9
5 See Coconut Express CC v South African Revenue Service (Customs and Excise) and others [2016]
2 All SA 749 (KZD).
6 ‘An order or decision by a court binds all persons to whom and or organs of state to which it applies’
7 Mars ‘The Law of Insolvency in South Africa (Juta) Ninth Edition, page 172.
8 Mars (supra) page 182.
9 Mars, (supra), page 373.
[21] It is settled law that a litigant has no locus standi to seek an order for
contempt arising out of breach where the punishment is not calculated to coerce
compliance with the order as articulated in Naidu and Others v Naidoo and
Another10:
‘By the time, however, that the present matter was argued on 12 March this
particular dispute had ceased to exist. The sale had not only been cancelled
but possession of the business handed back to the Naidus. Counsel for the
respondents submitted accordingly that the very basis on which the committal
order depended had dis appeared and the order – whatever the merits of the
dispute – no longer availed the applicants. His contention rested squarely on
the Full Court decision of Cape Times Ltd v Union Trades Directories (Pty) Ltd
and Others 1956 (1) SA 105 (N). As stated there , a litigant has no locus standi
to seek an order for contempt arising out of a breach of an order obtained in a
civil proceeding where the punishment is not calculated to coerce compliance
with the order…The argument is therefore simple, The Naidus compla in that
the first order has not been complied with. If the committal they seek is
calculated, as indeed it must, to ensure compliance with the order (for example,
the usual form of a suspended sentence subject to due performance), that has
become a physica l impossibility, The sale had been cancelled and the Naidus
have been restored to possession of the business…’
[22] The Constitutional Court in Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni
Metropolitan Municipality (supra), identifies wilful disobedience of an order made
in civil proceeding as a criminal offence. The non-compliance by the Respondent in
casu of the Cloete J, order is therefore a criminal o ffence.11 It is clear that the
Respondent cannot escape the consequence of punishment. In light hereof, when
punishment is considered, as in a criminal matter, the court is to have regard to
various factors.
[23] The traditional factors applied when considering an appropriate sentence
include the nature and seriousness of the offence, the personal circumstances of the
10 [1993] 4 All SA 528(D) page 529 - 530.
11 At para 28.
offender as well as the interest of society. 12 In the case of S v Zinn the Appellate
Division held that the courts should impose a sentence which in its view is
appropriate.13 The court is further mindful that the object of contempt proceedings is
to impose a penalty that will vindicate the court’s honour, consequent upon the
disregard of its previous order, as well as to compel performance in accordance with
the previous order.14
[24] The Respondent fully understood w hat his obligations were and
notwithstanding, the order of Cloete J, it did not compel performance . This court is
minded that since Cloete J’s sanction, the Respondent’s circumstances has
changed, which begs the question as to whether this court could reconsider the
sanction and impose something different to that which was intended by Cloete J.
[25] In my view, this considera tion is akin to the procedure applied for the putting
into operation of a suspended sentence in respect of criminal proceedings . The
matter of Stow v Regional Magistrate, Port Elizabeth NO and Others 15 serves
as a useful guide where the Supreme Court of Appeal held as follows:
‘…the putting into operation of a suspended sentence is an inherent element of
the criminal process and where a court orders that a suspended sentence be
made operational, it assumes the position of a criminal court which punishes
the person who has been convicted. It has to have regard to the ordinary
principles of punishment and cannot simply have a person imprisoned as would
a clerk keeping a register. When the liberty of a person is at stake, grounds
must exist before such liberty is taken away. In fact, the second court is nothing
else but an extension of the trial court when it considers putting a suspe nded
sentence into operation.’
[26] Section 297(7) of the Criminal Procedure Act 51 of 1977 states that:
‘A court which has—
12 S v Zinn 1969 (2) SA 537 (A).
13 1969 (2) SA 537 (A) at 540G.
14 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (supra),at para 28.
15 2019 (1) SACR 487 (SCA) at paragraph 45.
(a) postponed the passing of sentence under paragraph (a) (i) of
subsection (1);
(b) suspended the operation of a sentence under subsection (1)( b) or
(4); or
(c) suspended the payment of a fine under subsection (5), whether
differently constituted or not, or any court of equal or superior
jurisdiction may, if satisfied that the person concerned has through
circumstances beyond his control been unable to comply with any
relevant condition, or for any other good and sufficient reason,
further postpone the passing of sentence or further suspend the
operation of a sentence or the payment of a fine, as the case may
be, subject to any existing conditi on or such further conditions as
could have been imposed at the time of such postponement or
suspension.’
[27] Section 297(7) read with Section 297(9) 16 are thus the empowering
provisions to assist this court in making a n appropriate determination. The matter of
Moroe v Director of Public Prosecutions, Free State and Another 17 distils the
court’s approach to dealing with matters such as these . Courts are enjoined to apply
its discretion judicially and in accordance with the law, taking into account relevant
16 Section 297(9) prescribes:
‘(a) If any condition imposed under this section is not complied with, the person concerned may
upon the order of any court, or if it appears from information under oath that the person concerned
has failed to co mply with such condition, upon the order of any magistrate, regional magistrate or
judge, as the case may be, be arrested or detained and, where the condition in question —
(i) was imposed under paragraph (a) (i) of subsection (1), be brought before the court which
postponed the passing of sentence or before any court of equal or superior jurisdiction; or
(ii) was imposed under subsection (1) (b), (4) or (5), be brought before the court which
suspended the operation of the sentence or, as the case may be, the payment of the fine, or any court
of equal or superior jurisdiction, and such court, whether or not it is, in the case of a court other than a
court of equal or superior jurisdiction, constituted differently than it was at the time of such
postponement or suspension, may then, in the case of subparagraph (i), impose any competent
sentence or, in the case of subparagraph (ii), put into operation the sentence which was suspended.
(b) A person who has been called upon under paragraph (a) (ii) of subsec tion (1) to appear
before the court may, upon the order of the court in question, be arrested and brought before that
court, and such court, whether or not constituted differently than it was at the time of the
postponement of sentence, may impose upon such person any competent sentence.’
17 2022 (1) SACR 264 (FB) (10 March 2021), at para 16.
factors.18 In this regard, the SCA in Moroe (supra) recognised that the first aim of a
condition of suspension is to keep the convicted person out of prison and further held
that:
‘16.2 An application for putting into operation a suspended sentence is
not a mere formality but entails a fully -fledged exercise of judicial
discretion. It requires as much consideration and judicial discretion as
the imposition of sentence.
16.3 In certain respects , the consideration of implementation requires
even more careful consideration than the original imposition of
sentence. In the first place, the original trial and the reasonableness of
the relevant condition of suspension, which possibly was imposed by
another judicial officer of equal status, must be assessed afresh . If the
condition was ab initio unreasonable, the sentence should not be put into
operation.
16.4 The circumstances of the precipitating non -compliance must be
considered. If it was, for instance, a trivial or merely technical breach, a
heavy suspended sentence should not be put into operation because of
it.
16.5 The condition must be assessed in the light of events since its
imposition. If imple mentation will no longer serve any substantial
deterrent or reformatory purpose, it should not be ordered ( S v
Hendricks 1991 (2) SACR 341 (C) at 346d–g).
16.6 The court is at all times obliged to consider judicially the issues listed in
subsections (7) and (9) respectively. In S v Paulse 1990 (1) SACR 341
(W) the court emphasized that there is no justification for thinking away
the time that has lapsed since the original sentence. The putting into
operation of a suspended sentence does not follow automati cally
18 Hiemstra's Criminal Procedure, supra at Page 28–85.
and remains a matter for careful judicial consideration .’19 (my
emphasis added)
[28] It is therefore incumbent on this court, to consider the comprehensive pre -
sentence report compiled by Arina Smit, who is a practicing social worker for at least
28 years. She previously worked for The National Institute for Crime Prevention and
Reintegration of Offenders (NICRO) for 21 years and is currently in private practice.
The purpose of the report was to provide the court with a comprehensive
understanding of the Respondent ’s circumstances . In terms of the Respondent’s
personal circumstances, she in dicated that he is currently 74 years of age with no
criminal record. The Respondent has three adult children. The Respondent has a
history of cognitive decline and several chronic health issues. He was diagnosed
with dementia and shows signs of cognitive impairment. His mental health raised
concerns as the Respondent displayed symptoms of depression and apathy. The
Respondent does not pose a significant risk to society. Ms Smit opined that the
Respondent’s exposure to prison could lead to negative outcomes taking into
consideration that conditions of prison are often inhumane. The Respondent’s health
and age, makes him particularly vulnerable to mistreatment. She referenced the
Nelson Mandela Rules which advocate for the humane treatment of prisoners,
suggesting that imprisonment should be a last resort, especially for non -dangerous
offenders. Ms Smit finally opined that, taking into account the Respondent’s cognitive
state, and low risk to society, imprisonment is not recommended.
Conclusion
[29] Given the cir cumstances of this case, it is clear that Cloete J structured her
order so as to keep the Respondent out of prison and afford him an opportunity to
comply with conditions of suspension. The Applicant has through this application
clearly attempted to coerce compliance. However, the relief being sought by the
Applicant is not a mere formality and entails the exercise of judicial discretion. In fact,
it requires as much consideration and judicial discretion as the imposition of the
initial sanction. It is furthermore incumbent on this court to assess the matter afresh
19 At para 16.
which includes the reasons for non -compliance and changed circumstances of the
Respondent since the Cloete J order.
[30] I interpose to emphasise that a s guardians of the Constitution, cou rts
jealously guard orders and ensure compliance “by all and sundry”. 20 It is said that “In
doing so, courts are not only giving effect to the rights of the successful litigant but
also and more importantly, by acting as guardians of the Constitution, asse rting their
authority in the public interest.”21
[31] The circumstances of the Respondent have evidently change d; however,
this court, must be astute to ensuring that a balance is maintained so as to ensure
that a correct message is conveyed through this judgment that non -compliance with
court orders are viewed in a very serious light. Section 165 (5) of the Constitution is
said to “lie at the heart of the rule of law” and enjoins all persons to whom a court
order applies obeys the terms thereof on pain of sanction.22
[32] On the papers, the Respondent seeks an order for the dismissal of the
Applicant’s application; however, in the address, Counsel on behalf of the
Respondent conceded that the Respondent cannot escape punishment but that
other forms of punishment should be explored such as community services which
would still have the desired effect. This because of the Respondent’s medical
condition and because, regard is t o be had to the purpose for which contempt
proceedings exists.
[33] Even if the court considered to authorise the Writ of Commitment as per the
relief sought, the purpose for the writ will not be achieve d no matter how hard the
tree is shaken or the proverbial cage is rattled. The effect of this type of relief will
result in there being no winners. The parties have reached a stale -mate with the
gnawing question that will loom large , namely; has the Respond ent succeeded in
20 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC) (Pheko II) at
para 2.
21 Pheko and Others v Ekurhuleni Metropolitan Municipality (No 2) 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC) (Pheko II) at
para 2.
22 See MEC for the Department of Public Works and Another v Ikama Architects CC 2023 (2) SA 514
(SCA) para 30.
making a mockery of the rule of law upon which stands the pillars of our
constitutional values. The dignity and authority of the courts must be upheld.
[34] The Respondent’s prevailing circumstances clearly indicate that direct
imprisonment w ill not be appropriate. I am of the view that an alternative to direct
imprisonment will be an appropriate sanction which will serve to send a clear
message that contemptuous behaviour towards orders of court will not be tolerated.
This court, being alive to the fact that sentence of imprisonment should be a
measure of last resort, is of the view that a period of imprisonment will not have the
desired outcome for the Applicant, and will be detrimental to the Respondent. This
does not mean that the Responden t cannot be punished for disobeying a court
order. House arrest with conditions may be an appropriate alternative as a non -
custodial sanction in terms of Section 276(1)(h) of Act 51 of 1977.
[35] The Constitutional Court has described this form of sentence as “an
innovative form of sentence” which is flexible to meet the specific circumstances of
each offender’s case. It is trite that Section 52(1) of the Correctional Services Act
111 of 1998 entitles a court when ordering correctional supervision t o impose a
variety of stipulations to the sentence regime such as inter alia , house arrest,
community service, an order to refrain from using or abusing alcohol which are
appropriate. In order for the court to make a final determination, it will be imperat ive
for the Respondent to be assessed regarding his suitability to be placed under
correctional supervision. In addition, a Trustees’ Report is deemed necessary in
order establish what is in the Respondent’s estate and whether the Applicant’s claim
will be settled either in part or in whole.
[36] Therefore, in the exercise of my judicial discretion, I am of the view that the
matter is to be adjourned for a period of three months to enable the Trustee
appointed by the Master to provide a report to this court as to whether the
Respondent’s insolvent estate will be in a position to settle the Applicant’s claim
either in whole or in part . This report in addition to the Correctional Supervision
Report will assist the court in determining an appropriate alternative sanction.
Order:
[37] After having heard Counsel for the Applicant and Counsel for the
Respondent, and having cons idered the document filed on record , the court directs
that:
1. The matter is adjourned until 19 September 2024 for:
(a) a Trustee’s Report on whether the Respondent’s Insolvent Esta te will be
able to settle the Applicant’s claim either in whole or in part and
(b) Correctional Supervision Report regarding the Respondent’s suitability for
House Arrest in terms of section 276(1)(h) of Act 51 of 1977.
2. The matter of costs is to stand over for later determination.
__________________________-
ANDREWS, AJ
APPEARANCES:
Counsel for the Applicant: Advocate Barclay-Beuthin
Instructed by: Beirowski Attorneys
Counsel for the Respondent: Advocate P Tredoux
Instructed by: Neville Cohen & Associates
Heard on: 04 – 05 June 2024
Delivered: 20 June 2024 – This judgment was handed down electronically by
circulation to the parties’ representatives by email.