1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(NORTH WEST DIVISION, MAHIKENG)
CASE NO: 2026-191373
In the matter between:
FERROFLOW (PTY) LTD Applicant
. and
SIMON MPATLANE MAEBANE First Respondent
RGN MINING (PTY) LTD Second Respondent
ALL PERSONS ACTING IN CONCERT WITH,
OR AT THE INSTANCE OF, THE FIRST RESPONDENT
Third Respondent
Date heard: 21 August 2026
Delivered: 7 September 2026
Coram: Reddy J
Summary: Urgent application for contempt of court - first and third respondents,
arising from their disregard of an interim interdict protecting the applicant's
access to - operation of, its chrome beneficiation plant- the requisites for contempt
are established beyond reasonable doubt- the first respondent's alibi being shown
2
false by his own annexure- committal ordered, suspended on strict conditions
costs on the attorney and client scale.
JUDGMENT
REDDY J:
Introduction
[l] This is an urgent opposed application. The applicant, Ferroflow (Pty) Ltd,
previously Das Minerals (Pty) Ltd (Ferroflow) prays for the following relief:
' 1. Declaring the first respondent and the third respondent to be in contempt of the order
of this Court granted by Wessels AI on 7 August 2026 ("the order").
2. Committing the first respondent and the third respondent, including Raganya Moifo
Brendan (identified in the papers as a person acting in concert with the first respondent), to
imprisonment for such period as this Court deems appropriate.
3. Authorising the Sheriff of this Court, duly assisted by the South African Police Service
where necessary, to give effect to the order of 7 August 2026, including the removal of any
obstruction to Ferroflow's access to its plant.
4. Directing the first and second respondents to pay the costs of this application on the
scale as between attorney and client, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be
absolved, including the costs of two counsel, one of whom is senior.
5. Further and/or alternative relief.'
[2] The application is opposed by the first and second respondents. The third
respondent, defined in the papers as all persons acting in concert with, or at the
instance of, the first respondent, has not itself elected not to participate.
3
The parties
[3] Starting with the description of the parties makes the application easier to
navigate and assists with the reading thereof. The applicant is Ferroflow (Pty) Ltd
(Ferroflow), a private company which conducts a chrome beneficiation and
washing operation at Portion 73(a) of the Farm Elandsdrift 467, Section JQ,
Mooinooi, North West Province (the plant), on behalf of a third party, RGN
Mining (Pty) Ltd. Its sole director is Mr Daniel Petrus Johannes Botha (Botha).
[4] The first respondent is Mr Simon Mpatlane Maebane (Maebane), an adult
businessman. Maebane is the sole director and sole shareholder of the second
respondent, RGN Mining (Pty) Ltd (RGN Mining), which he describes as holding
a forty per cent shareholding in Ferroflow. The third respondent includes all
individuals acting in common purpose alongside Maebane or at his direction. The
classification of the third respondent in this fashion is necessitated by Ferroflow's
inability to identify each person Maebane might deploy for his own benefit.
The background facts
[5] The relationship between Ferroflow and RGN Mining derives from a
Memorandum of Undertaking concluded between Das Minerals (Pty) Ltd, as
Ferroflow then was, and Maebane, signed on behalf ofRGN Mining at Bokamoso
on or about 6 June 2023. It is unnecessary, and premature, to resolve the disputes
between the parties as to the meaning, performance or continued existence of that
Memorandum. It suffices, for present purposes, to record that a relationship of
some kind existed, and that it had, by August 2026, evidently soured.
[ 6] What is not in dispute, and what founds this application, is this. On or
before 31 May 2026, Maebane vocalised, in a series of statements published on
social media, his intention to remove Botha from the operation 'by forc e', that he
4
had conducted a 'quiet' investigation in preparation for doing so, and that he could
'not compromise anymore '. A threat assessment report recording those statements
was prepared on 31 May 2026, more than two months before the order with which
this application is concerned was ever sought.
Urgent ex parte application
[7] On 7 August 2026, on an urgent ex parte basis on which viva voce evidence
was led, Wessels AJ granted a rule nisi, returnab le on 29 October 2026. The
gravamen of the order interdicted and restrained Maebane, RGN Mining, and all
persons acting in concert with or at their instance, from:
' (i) blockading, obstructing or in any manner interfering with entry to, exit from, or access
to the plant;
(ii) preventing , obstructing or interfering with Ferroflow's ordinary business operations at
the plant;
(iii) entering upon or remaining upon the plant premises otherwise than in accordance with
any lawfully held right, and then only with rerroflow's prior written consent ;
(iv) assaulting, threatening, intimidating or harassing Ferroflow's directors, employees,
agents, contractors or invitees, or inciting any other person to do so; and
(v) removing, damaging or interfering with any plant, equipment, machinery, stock or other
property, or forcibly removing any ofFerroflow's employees from the plant.'
[8] Significantly the order records that the interim relief operates against the
respondents from the date of grant, but is enforceable against them by way of
contempt only from the date of service, or from the date the order is otherwise
brought to their attention.
5
Service
[9] On 8 August 2026, the order, and the founding papers upon which it was
granted, were transmitted to Maebane by electronic mail and by WhatsApp
message in the manner the order itself authorised. On 11 August 2026, the order
was thereafter served personally by the Sheriff of this Court upon Maebane. On
12 August 2026 the order was served upon RGN Mining. The Sheriffs return in
respect of Maebane records, in addition, that Maebane confirmed telephonically
to the Sheriff that he had already received the order and the notice of motion by
email. These facts are irrefutable.
[ 1 OJ What followed, on F erroflow's evidence, was a sustained and escalating
course of unlawful conduct at the plant. On 8 August 2026, the very day the order
was transmitted to him, Maebane sent a voice note to Botha in which he stated,
among other things, that Ferroflow's operation 'will never, ever happen', that
Botha should 'prepare his exit', that matters would 'co me to an end' when
Maebane got there, and that he would bring his own security company to the
plant.
[ 11] On the same day, unknown persons broke the locks on the plant gate and
replaced them with their own, and when a copy of the order was handed to those
persons by Mr Johannes Hendrik Last, (Last), it was tom up in his presence.
[12] On 11 and 12 August 2026, notwithstanding service of the order, the locks
were broken again and the plant entrances were once more obstructed. On 12
August 2026, members of the South African Police Service attended at the plant
and explained the order to the persons present. A copy of the order was handed to
the driver of a vehicle associated with those persons, who examined it and, in the
presence of a witness, shouted an obscenity directed at this Court. On 13 August
6
2026, mine material was dumped at the entrances to the plant to blockade them,
the trucks having been procured by Brendan from a haulage contractor under the
false representation that the plant belonged to Maebane. A sworn statement by the
contractor's foreman confirms that he would not have permitted the use of the
trucks had he known the truth. On 14 August 2026, motor vehicle tyres were
brought onto the plant and set alight at the entrances, further obstructing access,
while Maebane was personally present.
[13] On the evenmg of 14 August 2026, after all of the conduct detailed
previously, Maebane published further statements on his WhatsApp status. Timed
at 23h53, he stated, rhetorically, 'how can you interdict me from my operation',
recorded that a warrant for his arrest had been issued that morning 'before I can
go to the site', and declared 'I'm here'. A further statement, timed at 23h56, read
'Victory or Death no retreat forward we go backwards never'. Earlier public
statements, not disputed, included declarations that Mae bane would 'commit a
serious offence' against his 'enemies' and would 'do so in front of police officers
to witness', and a demand that Ferroflow 'pay back the money'.
[14] Maebane and RGN Mining delivered a notice of intention to oppose this
application on 18 August 2026. On the same day, they delivered an application
for the reconsideration of the order of 7 August 2026 in terms of rule 6(12)(c) of
the Uniform Rules. That application was argued before me on 19 August 2026,
and was dismissed. Maebane and RGN Mining's answering affidavit in this
application was delivered only on 20 August 2026, the day before the hearing,
without explanation for the delay and without an application for condonation.
7
Submissions on behalf of Ferroflow
[15] Advocate Alberts SC, points out that the requisites for contempt are
established beyond reasonable doubt. Advocate Alberts SC argues that the order
was unambiguous. In tandem with this contention Advocate Alberts SC maintains
that Maebane and RGN Mining admit both its terms and their knowledge of it,
and that non-compliance is established independently by contemporaneous video
and photographic evidence. Moreover, Advocate Alberts SC advances that the
incriminating evidence has been admitted, in substantial part, on the respondents'
own vers10n.
[16] Advocate Alberts SC posits that wilfulness and malafides are established
affirmatively, quite apart from the presumption which arises once the first three
requisites are shown. Advocate Alberts SC places reliance in this regard, on the
threat assessment report which predates the order by more than two months.
Counsel underscores the conduct which followed within hours of the order
reaching Maebane, and, with particular emphasis, on what he describes as a
demonstrably false alibi, advanced under oath, which Maebane's own annexures
falsify.
[17] As to sanction, Advocate Alberts SC argues that a wholly suspended order
of committal would be inadequate, given what he characterises as pre-meditated,
violent and continuing defiance of this Court's authority, aggravated by the false
alibi. Counsel maintains, further, that a costs order on the attorney and client
scale, inclusive of the costs of two counsel, is warranted by both the respondents'
conduct of the litigation.
8
Submissions on behalf of Maebane and RGN Mining
[18] Advocate Dlali, contends, as a preliminary matter, that Ferroflow lacks
locus standi to bring this application, since RGN Mining, as an asserted forty per
cent shareholder, was not party to the resolution authorising it.
[19] On the merits, Advocate Dlali avers that no evidence has been pleaded that
Maebane and RGN Mining deliberately disobeyed the order. Advocate Dlali
maintains that the persons at the plant are security personnel lawfully guarding
RGN Mining's property, deployed on legal advice that Mae bane and RGN Mining
should themselves stay away from the plant pending resolution of the dispute.
Advocate Dlali submits, in the result, that the application ought to be dismissed
with costs on the punitive scale, as an abuse of this Court's process.
Points in limine
[20] Before turning to the substance of the application it would be logical to
address the points in limine as raised by the respondents, namely urgency, a
challenge to Ferroflow's locus standi and to Botha's authority to depose to the
founding and replying affidavits. Since these points in limine, if sound, would be
dispositi ve of the application.
Urgency
[21] An application is urgent where the applicant cannot be afforded substantial
redress at a hearing in due course. Urgency is not a matter of the inherent nature
of the relief sought, but of the circumstances in which the application is brought.
It follows that what must be shown is that the ordinary timetable of motion
proceedings would deny the applicant substantial redress. 1
'East Rock Trading 7 {Pty) ltd and Another v Eagle Valley Granite (Pty) ltd and Others [2011] ZAGPJHC 196
para 6.
9
[22] During the hearing of the matter, I found that Ferroflow had complied with
the jurisdictional requirements set out in rule 6(12)(b) of the Uniform Rules of
Court, (the URC) and that the matter was urgent. Ferroflow is, on the papers,
wholly excluded from its own plant, the entrances to which are blockaded.
Notably, it is contractually exposed to a third party for whom it processes
material; that exposure deepens with every day the exclusion continues. The
return date of the rule nisi is 29 October 2026, some ten weeks distant, and
Ferroflow cannot sensibly be expected to remain excluded from its own plant,
and to suffer continuing and in material respects irreversible loss, for that period.
There is, moreover, an inherent public interest in the prompt vindication of a
disregarded order of court, an interest which does not depend upon the private
financial position of the litigant who happens to bring the application. Urgency,
having been firmly established, this issue need not detain this Court any further.
Locus standi and authority
[23] It is trite that the decision whether to institute or defend litigation on behalf
of a company is a matter for its board of directors, in whom the management of
the company's business and affairs vests. A shareholder, qua shareholder, holds
no power to institute, veto or otherwise control litigation by the company in which
it holds shares, absent some provision of the company's memorandum of
incorporation, a shareholders' agreement, or the Companies Act 71 of 2008,
conferring such a power.
[24] It is equally well established, in Ganes and Another v Telecom Namibia
Ltd2 that the deponent to a founding affidavit in motion proceedings need not
2Ganes and Another v Telecom Namibia ltd 2004 (3) SA 615 (SCA) para 19.
10
personally be authorised to depose to it. This is a separate enquiry. What must be
authorised is the institution of the proceedings themselves, and that authority is
ordinarily established, in the case of a company, by production of a resolution of
its board. Where the deponent is, in any event, the sole director of the applicant
company, that authority is not reasonably open to serious question.
Discussion
[25] Maebane's complaint is that RGN Mining, as an asserted forty per cent
shareholder of Ferroflow, was not party to, and did not consent to, the resolution
authorising this application. That being so Maebane contends that Ferroflow
accordingly lacked the standing and the authority to bring it. The difficulty as I
see it quite apart from its want of legal foundation, is that it proves too much. To
my mind, on Maebane's own logic, no company could ever litigate against its own
minority shareholder without that shareholder's consent. This proposition fully
extended would render a company's own directors powerless to protect it from
precisely the kind of shareholder against whom protection was needed. That is,
to my mind, an unsustainable proposition.
[26] The resolution relied upon by Ferroflow is dated 14 August 2026 and is
signed by Botha as Ferroflow's sole director, a fact confirmed by the CIPC report.
Botha constitutes the board of Ferroflow. There was, in the premises, nothing
further Ferroflow could have done, or was required to do, to authorise this
application. I add, for completeness , that the respondents at no stage delivered a
notice in terms of rule 7( 1) of the URC disputing Botha's authority. This is the
primary vehicle by which such a challenge may properly be raised and tested. A
bald challenge raised for the first time in an answering affidavit, without more,
does not suffice.
11
Finding
[27] In the premises, the point in limine is dismissed.
The law on contempt of court
[28] The requirements for civil contempt are trite. These were authoritatively
restated in Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd, where Cameron JA, summarising
the position, held:3
' [42] To sum up:
(a) The civil contempt procedure is a valuable and important mechanism for securing
compliance with court order, and survives constitutional scrutiny in the form of a motion court
application adapted to constitutional requirements.
(b) The respondent in such proceedings is not an 'accused person', but is entitled to
analogous protections as are appropriate to motion proceedings.
(c) In particular, the applicant must prove the requisites of contempt (the order; service or
notice; non-compliance ; and wilfulness and mala fides) beyond reasonable doubt.
(d) But, once the applicant has proved the order, service or notice, and non-compliance , the
respondent bears an evidential burden in relation to wilfulness and mala tides: should the
respondent fail to advance evidence that establishes a reasonable doubt as to whether non
compliance was wilful and mala fide, contempt will have been established beyond reasonable
doubt.
(e) A declarator and other appropriate remedies remain available to a civil applicant on
proof on a balance of probabilities.'
[29] It is equally settled, and bears emphasising that in a case such as this, that
an order of court, whether correctly or incorrectly granted, binds those to whom
it is directed. It axiomatically follows that such an order must be obeyed unless
3Fakie NO v CCll Systems (Pty) ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) paras 6, 9, I 0, 38 and 42; S v S.H [2023] ZASCA
49 paras 19 and 20.
12
and until it is set aside by a competent court.4 A litigant aggrieved by an order has
recourse to this Court by way of appeal, review or reconsideration. Among these
choices it is not open to a litigant to disregard the order while that recourse is
pursued, still less before it is even sought.
Discussion
(30] Insofar as the first two requisites are concerned, the existence of the order
is not, and could not sensibly be, in dispute. The same is annexed to the founding
papers and forms part of the record of this Court. The knowledge of the order is
not in issue. This much is borne out by the papers and considered as unassailable
facts as conceded to by Advocate Dlali.
(31] Maebane does not deny that persons are present upon the plant. Maebane's
defence is that those persons are 'securities' deployed at his and RGN Mining's
instance to guard material belonging to RGN Mining. The way I see it, that
defence, closely scrutinized is itself an admission of breach. The order interdicts
entering upon or remaining upon the plant premises otherwise than in accordance
with a lawfully held right, and then only with Ferroflow's prior written consent.
No written consent was ever sought or given.
(32] On Maebane's own account, persons deployed at his and RGN Mining's
instance have remained upon the plant continuously since before this application
was launched, and remained there, on the respondents' own showing, as at the
date the answering affidavit was signed. Non-compliance, too, is established, and
a substantial part it is established on the respondents' own version.
4Secretary, Judicial Commission of Inquiry into Allegations of State Capture v Zuma and Others 202 1 (5) SA
327 (CC) paras 27, 59, 61 and 62; Municipal Manager, 0 R Tambo District Municipality and Another v Ndabeni
2023 (4) SA 42 1 (CC) para 23.
13
[33) The justification proffered for their presence does not withstand scrutiny.
Maebane nowhere identifies the material he says is being guarded. What is more
Maebane does not provide an iota of corroborating evidence. This is illustrated
by the following. Firstly, the materials quantity, or how or when RGN Mining
acquired it has not been established. Secondly, not a single invoice, delivery note,
weighbridge certificate or assay result is produced. Ferroflow's uncontested
evidence is that the material presently at the plant belongs to a third party, RGN
Mining (Pty) Ltd, on whose behalfFerroflow is contractually bound to process it.
Notably RGN Mining has no right, title or interest in it whatsoever.
[34] Tellingly in his own answering affidavit, Maebane describes the very same
persons as 'the securities that are guarding the property of the applicant' , which
cannot simultaneously be true of the account he gives elsewhere, that they guard
the second respondent's property. An answering affidavit which advances
mutually destructive versions on the very issue in dispute does not raise a bona
fide dispute of fact. What it accomplishes, is that it impugns the credibility of
both versions advanced.
[35] Even had RGN Mining possessed some genuine claim to material at the
plant, which I emphatically do not find, our law does not permit a party to
vindicate a proprietary claim through self-help. Still less by stationing armed
persons upon another party's premises in defiance of an order of this Court. As
the Constitutional Court held in Chief Lesapo v North West Agricultural Bank and
Another the rule of law does not permit a litigant to be judge in its own cause.5
The proper route to have followed was to seek legal recourse. The respondents
did not do so. Instead, they resorted to unlawful occupation instead, and did so,
on the evidence, with weapons.
5Chief Lesa po v North West Agricultural Bank and A not her 2000 (I) SA 409 (CC) paras 11 to 13 and 22.
14
[36] Non-compliance is, further, established independently and affirmatively by
evidence which the respondents barely engage. The locks to the plant gate were
broken on three separate occasions. The order, when first handed over, was tom
up in the presence of a witness. When later shown to another individual associated
with the respondents, it was met with an obscenity directed at this Court. Mine
material was dumped, and tyres were set alight, at the entrances to an operating
chrome beneficiation plant, denying Ferroflow full access to it. None of this is
seriously disputed on the papers; Maebane's answering affidavit either 'notes'
these allegations without denial, or denies them in the vaguest and most
conclusory of terms, unaccompanied by any competing account of what, if not
this, in fact occurred.
[3 7] I shift focus because of its significance to address Mae bane's denial that
he was personally present at the plant on 14 August 2026. That denial is
demonstrably false. This conclusion is anchored by no fewer than four sources,
two of them being Maebane's own.
[3 8] First, the very resolution upon which Maebane relies to establish his own
authority to depose to the answering affidavit is signed and dated by him 'at
Bokamoso on this 13 day of August 2026', placing him in the immediate vicinity
of the plant the day before the date he denies having been there. Second,
Maebane's own WhatsApp status, published at 23h53 on that very evening,
records his contemporaneous account of his own whereabouts: 'I'm here'. Third,
and independently, two further witnesses depose to having observed him at the
plant, soliciting the assistance of a police sergeant to mediate a dispute over the
release of F erroflow's product.
15
[39] Fourth, the Sheriffs return records that Maebane told the Sheriff, when
telephoned to arrange service, that he was then in Mpumalanga, a statement
irreconcilable with his sworn averment, repeated three times in the answering
affidavit, that he has been outside the North West Province 'throughout'. A
deponent who advances, under oath, an alibi so comprehensively and so variously
falsified, in an application for his own committal, does not raise a reasonable
doubt. He removes any doubt that might otherwise have existed, and does so
conclusively.
[ 40] I make one final offering which was disclosed for the first time in reply.
This places beyond any doubt the conclusion that Maebane's presence upon the
plant, and his control over what occurs there, is neither incidental nor innocent.
On 14 August 2026, Maebane approached a police sergeant present at the plant
and solicited his assistance to mediate a dispute. In the course of which the
sergeant conveyed to Ferroflow's witnesses that Maebane had said he would
permit trucks laden with Ferroflow's product to leave the plant if Ferroflow paid
him 'his 40% '.
[ 41] Later the same day, Mae bane transmitted, by WhatsApp from the same
cellular number the Sheriff used to effect service upon him, a share certificate, a
securities transfer form, RGN Mining's company registration documents, and
RGN Mining's own banking details. Those are, tellingly, the very documents
Maebane has since annexed to the answering affidavit as the foundation of his
locus standi challenge. It is reasonable to conclude that in these peculiar
circumstances Maebane, who offered to release Ferroflow's product, in truth the
property of RGN Mining upon payment of money, is not guarding his own
property.
16
[ 42] The irrefutable reality was that Maebane was holding Ferroflow's product,
in truth the property of RGN Mining, to ransom, and the documents transmitted
with the demand were not incidental. On my assessment the transmission of the
documents was simply a deliberate manoeuvre by which payment was to be
made. That conduct is inconsistent with an honestly, even if mistakenly, held
belief in a right to occupy the premises. The ineluctable conclusion is that
Maebane knew acutely what the order requires of him, and who has made his
continued breach of it the subject of a price.
Wilfulness and mala tides
[ 43] Maebane announced his intentions in a threat assessment report predating
the order by more than two months, in which he declared he would remove Botha
from the operation 'by force '. Within hours of the order, Maebane sent a voice
note announcing that Ferroflow's operation would 'never happen ' and that he
would bring his own security company to the plant, which he then did, not once
but three times over. Maebane continued, after the order, to publish statements
calculated to incite further unlawful conduct, culminating in a declaration, timed
hours after he had personally attended the plant, that he could not be interdicted
from 'his operation '.
[ 44] Maebane advanced, under oath, in answer to an application for his own
committal, an alibi shown by his own annexures to be false. None of that is the
conduct of an individual labouring under an honest, if mistaken, view of his
rights. From the papers before me, Maebane's conduct was that of an individual
who had resolved, and who has said so publicly and repeatedly, that no order of
this Court will stand between him and what he has decided to take.
17
Finding
[ 45] In the premises it has been established, beyond reasonable doubt, that the
existence of the order, Mae bane's knowledge of it, and his non-compliance with
it are established. Moreover, the evidence reiterates that his non-compliance was
wilful and ma/a fide. Resultantly, the requisites for contempt are established
against Maebane. During argument, Advocate Alberts SC moved an oral
application to amend the notice of motion so as to seek a declaration that RGN
Mining , too, be found in contempt, conditional upon the papers establishing its
conduct.
[ 46] After a carefully consideration of same and the opposition thereto, I cannot
see my way to grant that amendment. Prayer 1 of the notice of motion, as
amended and delivered in Ferroflow's heads of argument the day before the
hearing, sought a contempt declaration against Maebane and third respondents
only. This was a deliberate and considered election, not an oversight. Reviving
the abandoned relief for the first time during oral argument, without a formal
amendment application and without affording RGN Mining any real opportunity
to address the questions peculiar to a corporate contempt finding, is procedurally
unfair to it.
[ 4 7] Those questions include the attribution of the requisite knowledge and
malafides to a company as distinct from its director personally, and what sanction
could properly follow against a corporate contemnor. The conditionality attached
to the application, that it succeed only if the papers establishes RGN Mining's
conduct, adds nothing. It restates the ordinary onus resting on any applicant and
creates no genuine opportunity for RGN Mining to be heard on the specific relief
now sought against it.
18
[ 48] A contempt declaration is a serious, quasi-criminal finding, and fairness
required more than an after-the-fact conditionality could offer. That said, the facts
underlyin g RGN Mining's own conduct are not thereby rendered irrelevant. RGN
Mining was served with the order, persons remain deployed at its instance to
guard what it claims is its own material, and its own answering affidavit admits
as much. They remain relevant to the costs order sought against it, and to the relief
granted against the third respondent and in favour of enforcement by the Sheriff,
addressed further below.
The position of the third respondent
[ 49] The order was granted, deliberatel y, against Maebane, RGN Mining, and
all persons acting in concert with or at the instance of either of them. This
formulation was necessitated by the practical impossibility, at the time the order
was sought, of identifying by name each person whom Maebane might enlist.
Relief in that form is competent , as the Constitutional Court confirmed in
Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union and Others v
Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Ltd and Another and as this Division applied in Glencore
Operations SA (Pty) Ltd v Mahuma and Others, provided it is directed at those
who have in fact engaged in the interdicted conduct; knowledge of the order,
rather than personal service, suffices to found contempt against a member of such
a class.6
[50] Ferroflow identifies one member of the third respondent by name,
Brendan, who procured the trucks used to dump mine material at the plant's
entrances on 13 August 2026, having misrepresented to the haulage contractor's
6Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers' Union and Others v Oak Valley Estates (Pty) Ltd
and Another 2022 (5) SA 18 (CC) paras 40 to 47; Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd v Mahuma and Others
[2025] ZANW HC 96 paras 7 and 12 to 15
19
foreman that the plant belonged to Maebane. Brendan's conduct plainly falls
within what the order prohibits. What is less clear is whether Brendan personally
had knowledge of the terms of the order, as opposed to knowledge merely that
Maebane wished the plant blockaded.
[51] That being the case, on the evidence Brendan's personal knowledge of
the order is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, I decline to
commit him. However, I am satisfied that declaratory relief, and relief authorising
the Sheriff to remove any obstruction occasioned by persons acting at Maebane's
instance, is appropriate and is established, at the least, on a balance of
probabilities against the third respondent as a class.
Sanction
[52] It is apposite, at this stage, to tum to sanction. A sanction for civil contempt
may be coercive, in the sense that its operation may be avoided by compliance,
or punitive, in the sense that it may not. The two are not mutually exclusive, and
a court is entitled to craft a sanction which serves both purposes , to compel
compliance and to vindicate the authority of this Court. 7
[53] The conspectus of the evidence demonstrate that a sanction of real
substance is called for. The contempt was premeditated and publicly announced
months in advance. It has been violent in its execution. To this end, locks were
broken on three occasions. A court order was tom up and met with obscenity.
Mine material dumped and tyres set alight at the entrances of an operating
industrial plant. Further, the evidence discloses that at least one person associated
with those deployed at the plant was found in possession of an unlicensed firearm
and a replica firearm and arrested by a police tactical response team. The
1Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) paras 73 to 76.
20
contempt is continuing and unpurged. On the respondents' own version, persons
remain deployed at the plant as at the date of the answering affidavit. And the
contempt has been aggravated, gravely, by Maebane's advancement, under oath,
of an alibi which his own annexure falsifies.
[54] On a proper evaluation of the facts I am not persuaded that a wholly
unconditional order of imprisonment is, at this stage, required to mark the gravity
of what has occurred. It must be borne in mind that the objective of compelling
compliance, which remains the paramount object of civil contempt proceedings,
is best served by an order which holds the immediate threat of imprisonment over
Maebane's head. The latter would be conditional upon strict and continuing
compliance, an approach this Division adopted recently in Bosele .8 Should the
conditions of suspension not be met, Maebane will have only himself to blame
for the consequence.
Costs
[55] Ferroflow seeks costs on the scale as between attorney and client, including
the costs of two counsel so employed. That scale is warranted. The order of 7
August 2026 itself contemplated costs on that scale in the event of opposition.
Maebane and RGN Mining have, in addition, delivered their answering affidavit
only on the eve of the hearing, without explanation or condonation, and have
advanced, under oath, a false account of Mae bane's whereabouts in answer to an
application for his own committal. Conduct of that kind attracts the most
censorious costs order this Court can make. The engagement of two counsel so
employed was warranted by the gravity of the relief sought.
8Bosele National Provident Fund v Tlholoe and Others [2026] ZANWH C 133 para 19.
21
Conclusion
[56] Maebane uttered, months before this order was sought, that he would take
Ferroflow's plant by force. This Court ordered him not to. Maebane received that
order in his own hand, and within days he executed precisely the plan he had
announced. If an order of this Court can be met with broken locks, a tom-up copy,
burning tyres and a false alibi, and answered only by an application for
reconsideration launched after the event, the order was worth nothing at all, and
this Court's authority worth less.
Order
[57] Consequently, I make the following order:
1. The first respondent is declared to be in contempt of the order of this Court
granted by Wessels AJ on 7 August 2026 under the above case number.
2. The first respondent is committed to imprisonment for a period of 30
(thirty) days, the operation of which is suspended for a period of 12 (twelve)
months on condition that:
2.1 the first respondent, and all persons acting in concert with or at his instance,
immediately and unconditionally withdraw from the applicant's plant situated at
Portion 73(a) of the Farm Elandsdrift 467, Section JQ, Mooinooi, North West
Province;
2.2 all obstructions to access to the plant, including any locks, mine material
or debris placed at its entrances by or at the instance of the first respondent, are
removed within 48 (forty-eight) hours of this order;
2.3 the first respondent, the second respondent, and all persons acting m
concert with or at the instance of either of them, thereafter, strictly comply with
the order of 7 August 2026 for the duration of the period of suspension; and
22
2.4 the first respondent commits no further breach of this order or of the order
of 7 August 2026 during the period of suspension.
3. The Sheriff of this Court is authorised and directed, duly assisted by the
South African Police Service where necessary, to take all steps necessary to give
effect to paragraph 2 of this order, including the removal of any person or
obstruction unlawfully preventing the applicant's access to the plant.
4. The authorisation and direction in paragraph 3 above shall apply to, and
may be enforced against, all persons acting in concert with or at the instance of
the first respondent, being the third respondent.
5. The application for the committal ofRaganya Moifo Brendan is dismissed,
without prejudice to the applicant's rights to pursue further relief against him upon
a fuller evidentiary foundation.
6. The first and second respondents are directed to pay the costs of this
application, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, on the
scale as between attorney and client, including the costs of two counsel.
REDDY J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT, SOUTH AFRICA,
NORTH WEST DIVISION
23
Appearances
Counsel for the Applicant: Advocate G W Alberts SC and Adv D S Merrills
Instructed by: Burgerhuyser Attorneys, Pretoria, c/o Labuschagne Attorneys,
Mahikeng
Counsel for the First and Second Respondents: Advocate S Dlali
Instructed by: Nkome Incorporated Attorneys, c/o Sehlabo TA Attorneys,
Mahikeng