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 HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)
CASE NO: 2025/221659
In the matter between
M[…] N […] Applicant
And
J[…] E […] First Respondent
PEARL WALSH Second Respondent
RAEL KASSEL t/a KASSEL SKLAAR Third Respondent
COHEN AND COMPANY
Coram: Pangarker, J
Hearing: 19 February 2026, 5 March 2026 and 15 April
2026
Judgment Delivered: 20 April 2026
EX TEMPORE JUDGMENT
PANGARKER J, :
2
/…
[1] This judgment must be read with the C ourt's written
reasons in the matter pursuant to an urgent application heard
on 8 December 2025. The written reasons for the order
granted were delivered on 24 December 2025 and appear on
the SAFL LI digital platform as MN v JE and Others , 2025
ZAWCHC 604. In the reasons, the court set out in detail the
chronology of events, circumstances and the roles played by
the respondents.
[2] It bears repeating, for purposes of this judgment , that
Acting Judge Grei g had granted an order on
21 November 2025, in an urgent application brought by the
applicant, the father of a minor child, against the first
respondent, the mother of the child, whereby the latter was
required to return the child to him with immediate effect and
the child was to remain in his primary care.
[3] The Family Advocate or C hild Care Expert were
required to conduct an assessment, inter alia , into the child's
best interest. It was common cause that by the time the
urgent application came before this court, in the last week of
the fourth term of 2025, 17 days had lapsed since Grei g AJ's
order, and the mother had still not returned the child to the
father, as ordered. The mother's whereabouts were unknown,
and the police, D epartment of Social Services and F amily
3
/…
Advocates were alerted. It was reported that the child and
mother were living in a caravan park in Bellville, and were
assisted by the second respondent, Pearl Walsh, a gender
activist and lay assistant, who was apparently authorised, in
terms of a power of attorney, to act for the mother. The detail
and findings related to this ostensible authority in terms of
the power of attorney are addressed in the December
reasons.
[4] The third respondent, a practising attorney and
registered law firm in the Western Cape, was also involved in
the matter, and seemed to have been acting on instructions
from the mother, which he received from Ms Walsh by way of
her power of attorney.
[5] The matter came before this C ourt as an urgent
application then in December 2025, seeking to hold all three
respondents in contempt of the Grei g AJ order, and by then
the child and the mother's whereabouts were still unknown.
The reasons set out in some detail relay the events of 8
December and the extent which the C ourt, the registrar
Ms Schmidt, the Family Advocate and the applicant's legal
representatives went to in order to trace the mother and the
child.
4
/…
[6] The child's whereabouts only became known to the
applicant's legal representatives and also the registrar, after
the 8 December order was served on the respondents , w hen
the mother made contact with Ms Burgess late in the
afternoon to inform her where the child may be collected. The
information provided at that stage was that the child was no
longer in the caravan park.
[7] In the 8 December order, while the mother and
Ms Walsh were found to be in contempt of the Grei g AJ order,
findings and orders against Mr Kassel and his firm stood over
on condition that he cooperated with the applicant's legal
representative in order to ensure the safe return of the 4-
year -old girl.
[8] The matter was postponed to 19 February 2026 to
finalise these remaining aspects as referred to in paragraphs
3 and 5 of the order granted on the 8 December. It is
necessary to indicate that in terms of this order there was no
specification as to how the mother and Ms Walsh were to
present reasons why they should not be committed for
contempt and this means that the Co urt was prepared at that
stage to hear oral submissions and/ or consider an affidavit
from both.
5
/…
[9] A further matter to mention is that Mr Kassel delivered
an electronic copy of a notice of withdrawal as attorney of
record on 10 December 2025, which the C ourt indicated he
had not complied with in respect of rule 16( 4). Given the
history of this matter, from the commencement of proceedings
before Gre ig AJ and continuing through the urgent
applications before this Court and the outstanding issues, the
matter was anything but smooth sailing.
[10] Subsequent to the 8 December order, the registrar was
inundated with email communication and demands from
Ms Walsh, which seemed to have continued even after last
week's hearing on 15 April. Ms Walsh has, despite this C ourt
delivering 20 -page written reasons in respect of its 8
December order, requested further reasons and has also
addressed correspondence to the Judge President's Office,
querying this matter and insisting on further reasons and
effectively wishing to revisit the proceedings before Grei g AJ
and this C ourt in emails.
[11] To clarify, as has already been indicated previously, no
further reasons were provided and this was communicated to
the Judge President's secretary. There was also the threat of
a review application against this Court as well as Grei g AJ,
and as already indicated, no such review application has been
6
/…
brought to this Court's attention.
[12] In addition to all of the above, Ms Walsh has also
indicated that this Court, at this stage, is to recuse itself from
the proceedings and for purposes of the record in this
judgment , the Court indicates that there is no formal
application for recusal and to the extent that Ms Walsh is
unhappy with the Court's refusal or dismissal of her
application for postponement on 15 April a few days ago, it
bears repetition that the application for postponement was
heard fully on a formal application and reasons were provided
ex tempore , in court, on the day and in the exercise of the
Court's discretion, having regard to all the facts and
circumstances, the request for a postponement was refused
with costs.
[13] It furthermore bears mentioning, and it is an aspect
which is addressed later in this judgment , that Ms Walsh's
approach and attitude to the orders of Grei g AJ, as well as to
the order of C ourt of 8 December 2025, to the extent that it is
relevant, is that she is faultless and blameless in respect of
assisting the mother in what was effectively hiding the child
from the father and contrary to Gre ig AJ's order.
[14] Furthermore, Ms Walsh's view throughout the
7
/…
proceedings in this matter before the C ourt has been one of
wishing to revisit and address the proceedings before Grei g
AJ and this C ourt in December 2025. All such attempts, and
there have been many, to explain to Ms Walsh that the orders
stand until they are set aside by a competent court and that
they have to date not been set aside and that this Court
cannot review or even appeal its own prior decisions, have
unfortunately and remarkably been ignored and fallen on deaf
ears.
[15] As indicated, these further proceedings, which should
have been concise and dealt with urgently, have unfortunately
become protracted and have been anything but smooth
sailing. What thus, in fact, should have been a court
appearance and finalisation of a matter on one day, then
turned into lengthy court days, largely taken up with
submissions related to what had already happened in the
matter and the issue of legal representation.
[16] On 19 February 2026, after hearing the mother's
submissions and at the behest of Ms Walsh, the matter was
postponed for the latter to file an affidavit to the affidavit of
Ms Burgess and the mother. The matter was then postponed
to 5 March 2026. On 5 March 2026, and after again hearing
Ms Walsh at length, the matter was postponed finally to 15
8
/…
April for her legal representation, for finalisation of the
contempt proceedings and for costs.
[17] Ms Walsh blamed Ms Burgess for interfering with her
pro bono legal representation, specifically Ms Hans , who was
appointed and provided by the Legal Practise Council or LPC.
On 15 April, she formally applied for another postponement
for new pro bono legal representation.
[18] As already indicated, this application was fully
ventilated and an ex tempore judgment delivered and
eventually an order was granted refusing the application for
postponement with costs on S cale C.
[19] In terms of the order of the 5
th of March, Ms Walsh's
affidavit was to be delivered by 16 March, but this did not
occur. In terms of the previous appearance on 19 February,
Ms Walsh's affidavit was to be delivered on 25 February,
which also did not occur.
[20] Mr Kassel was required to file an affidavit explaining
why he should not be held in contempt of the Grei g AJ order
and why a cost de bonis propiis order should not be granted
against him and his firm. He duly complied and filed, on my
understanding, more than one affidavit. Ms Burgess, on
9
/…
behalf of the applicant, also delivered a replying affidavit
insofar as the contempt and cost issue against Mr Kassel .
Mr Kassel also indicated that he would seek a cost de bonis
propiis order against Ms Burgess' law firm.
[21] I turn then to address the outstanding orders relating to
paragraphs 3 and 5 of the 8 December order with reference
then to the various respondents in the matter .
[22] Turning to the first respondent : the first respondent
acknowledged the seriousness of the Grei g AJ order and
tendered in an affidavit her unreserved apology for her
non- compliance. She unequivocally took responsibility for her
actions and accepted that she should have complied with the
court order but did not do so. She explained that Ms Walsh,
an activist, led her to believe that she could assist her, hence
the power of attorney granted in Ms Walsh's favour.
[23] Furthermore, it is evident from her affidavit that she
relied solely on Ms Walsh's advice regarding the law, her
rights, the rules of court and civil procedure. She was
advised that she need not appear in court and that the matter
on Grei g AJ's rol l would be removed from the rol l. She was
furthermore advised to urgently remove her child from school,
to go to a safe place to hide and not to disclose her and the
10
/…
child's whereabouts.
[24] The first respondent relied on this advice provided by
Ms Walsh, believing it to be sound, but nonetheless
questioned it on several occasions, as the evidence indicates.
It seems clear from her affidavit that the mother then followed
Ms Walsh's advice that the child's whereabouts were not to be
disclosed as she could lose her daughter. The mother, once
served with this Court's order of 8 December, then
immediately complied and disclosed the child's whereabouts
to Ms Burgess.
[25] In relation to a suitable sanction to impose, which is in
fact the only issue other than costs that I am required to still
determine, the mother requested the Court to consider the
following facts :
[1] The child was handed over to the father and both
parents are committed to cooperating and co-
parenting.
[2] She, her daughter and the applicant suffered
emotional distress as a result of the events and the
adults are attempting to address the damage caused
to the child.
11
/…
[3] The first respondent suffered severe financial strain
and as she earns R8 000 per month, she is working
extended hours to make up for the financial loss.
[4] She removed Ms Walsh's power of attorney and
sought legal aid as she wished to follow the correct
procedure in respect of ensuring her child's best
interests.
[26] The first respondent sets out the detail of voice notes
indicating instructions from Ms Walsh on 21 and 22 November
2025, respectively. While these were relevant in the main
hearing on 8 December, it bears emphasising that the Court
has already found the mother's actions wilful and mala fide .
It is not something which can be revisited and put in a
nutshell, she has already been found to be in contempt of
court. The Cour t cannot now change such finding and with
the benefit of hindsight, had the first respondent actually
attended court, the Court's finding may perhaps have been
slightly differen t, but she would nonetheless have been found
to be in contempt of the Gre ig AJ order.
[27] The Court furthermore points out that there is no
counter version to the mother's voice notes which indicate
that it was Ms Walsh who had issued instructions for her not
12
/…
to contact or respond to communication from anyone,
including the police, who had been approached in respect of
finding the minor child. These summaries of voice notes
support what the Court was advised of in December, that
Ms Walsh was effectively and for want of a better term,
calling the shots ; furthermore, that Ms Walsh had assisted in
helping the mother to hide the child from the authorities and
in addition thereto, that Ms Walsh knew the mother's
whereabouts and that the mother was instructed to ignore
communication from the police, from the applicant's attorney,
from the registrar of this court and from any social workers
involved.
[28] The first respondent, as I have indicated, has shown
remorse for her non -compliance with the Grei g AJ order and
the Court's view is that such remorse is sincere. While it is
clear that she relied on Ms Walsh's advices as to what to do
with the child, she is , nonetheless , an adult and she failed to
attend court . S he elected wilfully to follow Ms Walsh's advice
and she deliberately failed to return the child to the applicant
as ordered by Grei g AJ.
[29] To a degree, the Court has some empathy for her but it
is clear that she knew and had been involved in previous
Court proceedings such as C hildren's Court and domestic
13
/…
violence and in the Court’s, view cannot escape a finding that
she knew that the non- compliance with the C ourt order is very
serious. That said, it was apparent in C ourt that the first
respondent was clearly sorry for her actions. She was
emotional and it is apparent that these proceedings and her
conduct as well as Ms Walsh's influence have had a severe
toll on her.
[30] Having considered the papers and the submissions, the
Court holds the view that a fine, wholly suspended, is the
most appropriate sanction to impose in the circumstances on
the first respondent. It serves as a reminder of her wrongful
conduct and would, in the court's view, hopefully spur her on
to cooperate with the applicant, with social services and the
Family Advocate when it comes to co- parenting.
[31] The Court then turns to the second respondent, Pearl
Walsh .
[32] As mentioned earlier, there are no affidavits from
Ms Walsh in this enquiry. Her conduct is set out in
substantial detail in the 24 December 2025 reasons. Unlike
the first respondent, having regard to the surfeit of email
communications sent to the registrar and exchanges with
Ms Burgess, where the registrar of this C ourt was included,
14
/…
read together with the affidavits and supporting annex ures
filed in the matter, Ms Walsh has shown absolutely no
remorse, nor contrition, nor regret for her role and actions in
aiding and abetting the mother to avoid the child being
traced , and the wilful non -compliance of the Grei g AJ order.
[33] Ms Walsh, with respect, has consistently complained
about and questioned the C ourt and the applicant in the
finding which holds her in contempt of court. Yet , she either
blindly ignores the clear explanation and rationale behind the
findings from paragraph 63 of the written reasons, setting out
why and how she is indeed in contempt of court, or she simply
refuses to read those reasons.
[34] She is not, by any stretch of the imagination, an
unintelligent person and the written reasons are clear and
concise and leave no room for any kind of misunderstanding.
This Court does not intend to repeat those findings and
emphasise once again that this judgment must be read with
those written reasons of 24 December 2025.
[35] Ms Walsh's conduct, as expressed in paragraph 66 of
the reasons, is a grave, serious and intentional interference
when assisting the mother to wilfully refuse to comply with
Gre ig AJ's order. The seriousness of such conduct cannot be
15
/…
overemphasised.
[36] Furthermore, Ms Walsh's actions are not only regarded
as very serious but, in the Court's view, considered
dangerous and obstructive of the rule of law. While she gives
out to the mother and everyone involved in this matter,
including the C ourt, that she is a gender activist who acted
out of concern for the mother and child in a domestic violence
situation, Ms Walsh thought nothing wrong in wilfully
instructing the mother to hide the child's location, to not
communicate with the police, the applicant's attorney and the
Court. It is very clear that Ms Walsh persists throughout the
later proceedings , subsequent to the December orders , that
her conduct was above reproach, harmless and in the mother
and child's favour. It was anything but that.
[37] The concerns which are expressed in paragraph 67 of
the written reasons remain. Ms Walsh acted beyond the
scope or ambit of the, “one -day ” power of attorney which was
placed before the Court which the mother had granted her and
she was hell -bent on her own fantastical idea of justice for
the mother and child, regardless of the Court order and the
possible damage her conduct may cause, whether to the
mother, the applicant, the child or all three.
16
/…
[38] One would have thought in the circumstances and with
respect to her, that as someone who prides herself on having
some legal knowledge and knowing C ourt processes , and that
the police, the Court and social services were all trying to
trace the mother and child, that Ms Walsh would have co-
operated and rather advised the mother to indicate her
whereabouts, or herself disclose their whereabouts, or
alternatively , refer the mother to legal aid. She did nothing of
the sort.
[39] This would be an unnecessarily lengthy judgment were
the Court to set out all its very serious concerns regarding
Ms Walsh, her attitude, her conduct and her approach as
someone who regards herself as a lay assistant and someone
who is a gender activist. She has displayed during the Court
proceedings , no respect for the seriousness of the Grei g AJ
order and has indicated she believes that she did nothing
wrong . She has persisted in questioning why this C ourt has
held her in contempt. This despite a clear explanation in the
written reasons and the reference to the authority which
allows for a person who aids and abets another party who is
the subject of a C ourt order , to be held in contempt of court.
[40] The Court also furthermore points out that the written
reasons were provided on the same day that it was delivered,
17
/…
on 24 December 2025 and it included Ms Walsh . S o there can
be no mistake that she should be fully aware of the Court's
findings. One can therefore only emphasise that Ms Walsh
should have read the Court's findings.
[41] The applicant seeks an order that Ms Walsh be
committed to prison. In respect thereof, Ms Walsh was
requested to make oral submissions and she submitted that
she is a single parent, she has one minor child and two adult
children, one child being on the autism spectrum, that she is
homeless and that she has no income.
[42] Despite being provided with more than one opportunity
for legal representation, she accused the Court on the
previous occasion of forcing her to represent herself,
something which she has repeated this morning prior to the
judgment . This, with respect, is a fallacy. Ms Walsh's
application for a second postponement and a second pro bono
legal representative was dismissed for the reasons already
set out and delivered ex tempor e.
[43] To emphasise, the Court exercised a discretion in this
regard and rejected her version that Ms Burgess had
interfered with her previous legal representative, Ms Hans , by
sending certain correspondence enquiring about the matter
18
/…
and instructions. Ms Walsh submits further that she has no
financial support, that she lives from friend to friend, that she
has spent R6 000 on assisting the mother and that she is
effectively in and out of C ourt in respect of other litigation.
[44] She also advised the C ourt that her bank accounts are
frozen and that her adult children do not work. The C ourt
points out that nothing precluded Ms Walsh from deposing to
affidavits in this respect but she failed to do so and there is
no evidence to support these submissions. She has
requested that neither a fine nor suspended sanction nor
period of imprisonment be imposed as she only assisted the
mother out of the goodness of her heart.
[45] It was held by the Supreme Court of Appeal in Farkey
NO v CCII Systems (Pty ) Limited , 2006 ZASCA 52, at
paragraph 6, that :
“Contempt of a court order violates the dignity,
authority and reputation of the court.”
The Court fully agrees with this. Ms Walsh has displayed a
concerning unlawful disrespect for judicial authority. (see
the judgment of S v Beyer, 1968(3) SA 70A. )
19
/…
[46] I emphasise that it is the C ourt's duty to ensure that
the rule of law, which enjoys supremacy in terms of section
1(c) of the Constitution of South Africa 1996, is protected at
all times, even with respect , from a gender activist like
Ms Walsh who seemed to have been on a crusade of her own ,
regardless of any actual or potential harm and any non-
compliance with Court orders which ensued. At the same
time, the Court has to be fair and the Court has to be mindful
that the point of contempt and its sanction is not to punish the
contem nor but to bring her to her senses
[47] . The Court, despite the request by the applicant, will
not impose direct imprisonment as a sanction on Ms Walsh .
However , it will impose a suspended period of imprisonment
with conditions and with respect, hope that Ms Walsh realises
the gravity of her non- compliance the C ourt order and her
misconduct.
[48] The Court then turns to the third respondent, R ael
Kassel trading as Kassel Sklaar, Cohen and Company.
[49] The third respondent's role in the matter is clearly
demonstrated in the reasons and yet again this C ourt does
not repeat that in this judgment . This Court has read and
20
/…
considered Mr Kassel 's affidavits which Ms Burgess received
on the 18 th of March 2026 and has considered it alongside
Ms Burgess' affidavit and the part ies ' respective submissions.
In respect of a finding of contempt of C ourt, the evidence
supports a finding in respect of the third respondent that the
first two requirements for contempt are indeed present , and
that is the existence of the Grei g A J order and notice or
knowledge of the order.
[50] The problem for the applicant, however, in the Court's
view , is in respect of the remaining two requirements, that is ,
that there was non- compliance with the order by the third
respondent and that the conduct was wilful and mala fi de.
[51] In this respect of the remaining two requirements on
the papers , there is a dispute. The applicant bore the onus to
show that the third respondent failed to comply with the
Gre ig AJ order, that is the third respondent. Mr Kassel 's
contention in the affidavit is that he used his best efforts to
encourage and persuade Ms Walsh to request of the mother to
provide her details and whereabouts and comply with the
order.
[52] In annex ures A and B which are emails to Ms Walsh on
the 5
th and 6 th of December 2025 respectively, it is clear that
21
/…
Mr Kassel implored Ms Walsh to provide the mother's details
so that he may , inter alia , inform her of the order and the
requirement for compliance and advise her of the very serious
consequences which would flow in the case of contempt.
[53] At that stage , the Gre ig A J order was already granted
(21 November 2025) and the child, according to that order ,
had to be returned “ with immediate effect ”, meaning as soon
as possible. In other words , by 22 November 2025 at least , a
day after the order , the child should have been returned but
as we know , the child was not returned. On 22 November
Mr Kasselo then informed Ms Burgess that he was instructed
to act for the mother.
[54] Having regard to Ms Burgess ’ affidavit read with
Mr Kass el’s, it is this Court's view that Mr Kassel attempted
to obtain the mother and Ms Walsh's compliance with the
order at least by 5 December 2025. Ms Burgess seeks an
order holding Mr Kassel and his firm in contempt of the order
in the sense that they wilfully defined the order. However , as
alluded to earlier on the Court's understanding and the
reading of the affidavits in respect of the third respondent ,
there is a clear dispute of fact.
[55] In the Court's view the evidence ultimately does not
22
/…
support a finding that the third respondent disobeyed the
Court order and wilfully and mala fide defied it. Accordingly
in that case and in the instance of a dispute of fact , the
version favours that of the third respondent. In any event the
Court is not satisfied that the applicant has established that
the third respondent failed to comply with the Grei g AJ order
and thus the third and fourth requirements for contempt are
not fulfilled. Accordingly , the application in respect of the
third respondent fails.
[56] However, Mr Kass el and his firm's conduct in this
matter is concerning. These sentiments were expressed in
the written reasons and are seen from the chronology of
events. They failed to consult with the mother yet went on
record for her. Furthermore , the third respondent took
instructions from Ms Walsh yet allowed her to upload and
draft documents of her own motion. In addition , the third
respondent allowed its firm's name to be used for purposes of
the matter and by Ms Walsh in what ultimately was highly
questionable circumstances.
[57] The further conduct as described in the papers by also
allowing improper and incompetent applications by Ms Walsh
is also a serious concern. In this regard questions therefore
arise as to whether Mr Kass el and his firm , as the third
23
/…
respondent , acted as required of the standard of an attorney
of the High Court and as an officer of the C ourt. Given the
disputes in this matter and while I have raised these
concerns , the Court's view is that it is best that this judgment
be brought to the attention of the L egal Practise Council
Western Cape for its attention.
[58] Lastly then the Court turns to the issue of costs .
[59] There has been requests for cost de bonis propiis, both
from the applicant's legal representative in respect of
Mr Kassel and Mr Kassel in respect of Ms Burgess ’ law firm.
In light of the fact that this C ourt has found that the applicant
has not succeeded in proving the remaining requirements
insofar as a finding of contempt of C ourt against the third
respondent , it is not inclined to consider granting an order of
cost de bonis propiis against the third respondent.
[60] Insofar as Mr Kassel 's request for cost de bonis propiis
against Ms Burgess ’ firm is concerned, the Court's view is
that it is without merit. There are very concerning and
disparaging comments made by Mr Kassel in the emails of 5
and 6 December, which the Court has referred to and
allegations made that Ms Burgess or her firm had lied to the
Office of the Family Advocate.
24
/…
[61] From the evidence before this Court no finding is made
that Ms Burgess or her firm or in fact counsel for that matter ,
lied to the O ffice of the Family Ad vocate. It is not uncommon
for the Office of the Family Advocate to provide a
Memo randum as a matter of urgency in matters involving
minor children and, in this regard, certainly on the C ourt's
understanding of the record , there is nothing untoward or
improper from the applicant's legal representative s’ side on
this aspect.
[62] This is a matter which should have been finalised as
soon as possible, but in light of the developments and the
protraction of the matter , the Court's view is that certainly the
parents of the minor child have attempted to cooperate and
hopefully act in the child's best interest. Taking that into
account the Court's view is that ultimately the fairest order
aside from what the Court will read out in a second , is that
each party pays their own costs.
[63] In light of the above the Court grants the order (order
read out):
[1] The first respondent is fined R2 000, wholly
suspended for three years on condition that she
25
/…
cooperates with the F amily Advocate and/ or social
workers in respect of care and contact of the minor
child as it relates to case 2025- 221659.
[2] The second respondent is sentenced to 30 days ’
direct imprisonment , wholly suspended for 12 months
on the following conditions :
[2.1] That she complies with paragraph 6 of the
order granted on 8 December 2025.
[2.2] Tha t she reimburses the first respondent all the
funds received from the first respondent in
respect of this matter within a period of one
year from date of this order.
[3] The application in respect of the third respondent is
dismissed.
[4] The second respondent is ordered to pay the
applicant's costs of the postponements on 19
February 2026 and 15 April 2026 respectively ,
including costs of counsel on S cale C.
[5] Except for the above costs order in paragraph 4, each
26
/…
party shall pay their own costs.
[6] A copy of this judgment and order as well as the
order of 8 December 2025, the written reasons of
24 December 2025 and the Grei g AJ order shall be
forwarded by the R egistrar to the Legal Practise
Council , Western Cape for its attention and
information in respect of the conduct of the third
respondent.
[7] In respect of any non- compliance by the first and
second respondents with paragraphs [1] and [2] of
this order , the applicant would be entitled to approach
the Court on the same papers as duly supplemented
and with notice to the respondents , for the payment
of the
fine (first respondent ) and committal to prison
(second respondent ).
_________________________
M PANGARKER
27
/…
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances:
For Applicant: Adv J T Benadé
Instructed by: Burgess Attorneys Inc
For First Respondent: In person
For Second Respondent: In person
For Third Respondent: In person