About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Constitutional Court
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Constitutional Court
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZACC 53
|
|
Snyders and Others v De Jager (Contempt of Court) (CCT186/15) [2016] ZACC 53; 2017 (5) BCLR 600 (CC) (21 December 2016)
CONSTITUTIONAL
COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
Case
CCT 186/15
In the matter
between:
KAREL
SNYDERS
First
Applicant
SOFIA
SNYDERS
Second
Applicant
MINOR
CHILDREN
Third
Applicant
and
LOUISA FREDERIKA
DE
JAGER
Respondent
Neutral citation:
Snyders and Others v de Jager
[2016] ZACC 53
Coram:
Mogoeng CJ, Moseneke DCJ, Bosielo AJ, Cameron J,
Froneman J, Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J,
Mhlantla J, Nkabinde J and Zondo J
Judgments:
Zondo J (unanimous)
Heard on:
2
February 2016
Decided on:
21 December 2016
Summary:
Contempt
of court — order requiring manager of property to take all
necessary steps to restore peaceful possession —
new occupant
refusing to vacate — manager deciding against instituting
eviction proceedings — seeking guidance from
court —
absence of
mala fides
— no contempt of court
ORDER
On an application
for contempt of the court order handed down by this Court on
16 October 2015:
1. The application is dismissed, with no order as to costs.
JUDGMENT
ZONDO J (Mogoeng CJ,
Moseneke DCJ, Bosielo AJ, Cameron J, Froneman J,
Jafta J, Khampepe J, Madlanga J,
Mhlantla J and
Nkabinde J concurring):
Introduction
[1]
The background to this matter is to be found in a judgment
relating to an application for leave to appeal and an appeal between
the same parties which is being handed down at the same time as this
judgment.
[1]
For that reason I do not propose to give any details of that
background. This judgment relates only to a contempt of
court
application that the applicants brought against the respondent.
[2]
The Supreme Court of Appeal handed down its judgment on
30 September 2015. On 1 October 2015 Ms de Jager
caused
the Sheriff to evict Mr Snyders and his family from the
house without any warning or notice. On the same day Ms de
Jager
invited Mr Willem Breda to immediately move into that house
with his family. Mr Breda and his family moved into the house
on the same day.
[3]
On the application of Mr Snyders and his family, on 16 October
2015 this Court made the following order:
“
(1) Pending the outcome
of the applicants’ application for leave to appeal to this
Court against the judgment of the Supreme
Court of Appeal and or
judgment of the Land Claims Court and or of the Magistrate’s
Court in this case:
(a)
The respondent is ordered to take all the necessary steps to restore
to the applicants on or before Tuesday, 20 October 2015
peaceful
possession of the dwelling which they occupied before 1 October 2015.
(b)
The issue of costs is reserved.”
[4]
Peaceful possession of the house was not restored to Mr
Snyders and his family within the stipulated time or thereafter.
Ms
de Jager said that she asked Mr Breda to move out of the house and
go back to the “
saaltjie
”
[2]
so that Mr Snyders and his family could move back into the house but
Mr Breda refused. She asked Mr Breda on two or three
occasions
on different days to move back into the “
saaltjie
”
and each time Mr Breda refused. Ms de Jager said that she
then did not know what else she could do to ensure
the restoration of
peaceful possession of the house to Mr Snyders and his family.
[5]
Ms de Jager said that she thought about instituting court
proceedings for Mr Breda’s eviction but decided against it
because she did not think that there were reasonable prospects of
success. She wrote to the Registrar of this Court to inform
the
Court what steps she had taken to try and give effect to the interim
order of this Court and asked for directives or guidance
from this
Court as to what else she was expected to do. She says that she
did not get any guidance or directive from this
Court.
Mr Snyders and his family then brought an application for
contempt of court against Ms de Jager. Ms de
Jager opposed the
application. Both sides filed affidavits in support of their
respective cases.
[6]
It was submitted on behalf of Ms de Jager that she acted
bona
fide
in taking the steps that she took to comply with the interim
order of this Court. It was pointed out that Ms de Jager had
asked Mr Breda to move out of the house and go back to the “
saaltjie
”
and Mr Breda had refused. In support of the contention that Ms
de Jager had acted
bona fide
, reliance was placed upon the
fact that Ms de Jager wrote to the Registrar of this Court seeking to
establish whether there were
any other steps she was required to take
but no directive or guidance was given to her.
[7]
In the view I take of this matter, I do not consider it
necessary to discuss in any detail the principles relating to
contempt of
court. It will suffice to make one point.
This is that one of the elements of the crime is that the person said
to
be guilty of contempt of court must be shown to have acted
mala
fide
in not complying with the order of court. If the
person’s failure to comply with the court order came about as a
result
of a
bona fide
belief that, in doing what he or she did
or in not doing what he or she did not do, she was not in breach of
the court order, then
that person will not be guilty of contempt of
court.
[8]
The interim order of this Court required Ms de Jager to take
all the necessary steps to restore peaceful possession of the house
to Mr Snyders and his family. It did not specify which steps
nor could it so specify. Ms de Jager says that she spoke
to
Mr Breda and asked him to move back into the “
saaltjie
”
but Mr Breda refused. She says that she thought about
instituting eviction proceedings but decided against such a
course of
action because she thought that there were no reasonable prospects of
success for such proceedings. She draws attention
to the fact
that she even wrote to the Registrar of this Court asking in effect
for guidance as to what more she was required to
do to ensure that
peaceful possession of the house was restored to Mr Snyders and
his family.
[9]
There is no evidence that Ms de Jager may not have really
wanted to move Mr Breda and his family out of the house to make
way
for Mr Snyders and his family. There is, thus, no evidence
to justify a conclusion that she acted
mala fide
. That
being the case she cannot be found guilty of contempt of court.
This, therefore, means that the application for
an order declaring
her to be in contempt of court falls to be dismissed.
[10]
I do not think that considerations of justice and equity
justify that an order of costs be made against Mr Snyders and his
family.
Mr Snyders is an illiterate man and a farm worker.
He has been living in a goods shed with his family as a result of Ms
de
Jager’s conduct. A proper order on costs is for each
party to pay their own costs.
Order
[11]
In the result the application is dismissed, with no order as
to costs.
For the Applicants:
P R Hathorn SC with U K Naidoo instructed by J D van der Merwe
Attorneys.
For the Respondent:
J J Botha instructed by Blyth & Coetzee.
[1]
Snyders and Others v de Jager
[2016] ZACC 55.
[2]
Literally translated, “small hall”.