South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown Support SAFLII

You are here:  SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown >> 2021 >> [2021] ZAECGHC 20

| Noteup | LawCite

Twizza (Proprietary) Limited and Others v Enoch Mgijima Local Municipality and Others; In re Border - Kei Chamber of Business and Others v Eskom Holdings SOC Limited and Others (3413/2018) [2021] ZAECGHC 20 (23 February 2021)

Download original files

PDF format

RTF format


IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

(EASTERN CAPE DIVISION, GRAHAMSTOWN)

                                                           Case No: 3413/2018

In the matter between:                                                   

TWIZZA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED                              First Applicant

CRICKLEY DAIRY (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED             Second Applicant

FARMHOUSE FROZEN FOODS CC                             Third Applicant

KING FISHER INDUCTRIES CC                                    Fourth Applicant

And

ENOCH MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY                     First Respondent

THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR OF ENOCH MGIJIMA

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY NOMINE OFFICIO,

BEING MS LULEKA ELIZABETH

GUBHULA-MQINGWANA                                              Second Respondent

THE MUNICIPAL MANAGER OF ENOCH

MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY NOMINE

OFFICIO, BEING MS NOKUTHULA CECILIA

MGIJIMA                                                                        Third Respondent

IN RE

BORDER-KEI CHAMBER OF BUSINESS                     First Applicant

TWIZZA (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED                               Second Applicant

CRICKLEY DAIRY (PROPRIETARY) LIMITED               Third Applicant

FARMHOUSE FROZEN FOODS CC                              Fourth Applicant

KING FISHER INDUCTRIES CC                                     Fifth Applicant

SIGHTFULL 142 CC trading as SHELL                

ULTRA CITY                                                                    Sixth Applicant

And

ESKOM HOLDINGS SOC LIMITED                              First Respondent

THE NATIONAL ENERGY REGULATOR

OF SOUTH AFRICA                                                      Second Respondent

ENOCH MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY                   Third Respondent

THE ADMINISTRATOR OF ENOCH MGIJIMA

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY NOMINE OFFICIO                   Fourth Respondent

THE EXECUTIVE MAYOR OF ENOCH MGIJIMA

LOCAL MUNICIPALITY NOMINE OFFICIO                     Fifth Respondent

THE ACTING MUNICIPAL MANAGER OF ENOCH

MGIJIMA LOCAL MUNICIPALITY NOMINE OFFICIO     Sixth Respondent

IN RE APPLICATION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT

JUDGMENT – APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

BESHE J:

[1]      This is an application for leave to appeal against my judgment and order delivered on the 8 December 2020. The order I issued was inter alia to the effect that second and third respondents in the matter, now applicants were in contempt of court for failing to comply with an order that was issued by Mfenyana AJ on the 12 December 2019.

 [2]     The applicants in the main application oppose the application on the basis that the appeal does enjoy reasonable prospects of success.    

[3]      One of the grounds of appeal listed in the notice of application for leave to appeal and expanded on by Mr Rorke SC for the applicants in argument is the following:

That I erred in holding that the respondents’ non-compliance with the order of 12 December 2019 was, beyond a reasonable doubt, mala fides.

The question relating to the requirements of contempt of court was considered by the Constitutional Court in a matter I was referred to by Ms Rorke SC which dealt with two matters, one of which also incidentally involved an allegation of contempt of court by officials of municipality following deed of settlement entered into between the parties. Which settlement was made an order of the court. The matter of Matjhabeng v Municipality Eskom.[1] The subject of the contempt of court complaint, is also similar to this matter in that it concerned the non-payment of a municipal bill to Eskom in one of the matters under consideration by the Constitutional Court.

[4]      I still stand by the reasons I gave for coming to the conclusion that that non-compliance with the court order in question was beyond a reasonable doubt, wilful and mala fide. However, after a reading of the Matjhabeng Municipality judgment in particular paragraphs [86] – [88] I am unable to say that there are no reasonable prospects that the appellate court might find that the explanation(s) proffered by the respondents create doubt regarding the requirement of wilfulness and mala fides on their part. Although leave to appeal was sought to the Supreme Court of Appeal on the basis that the matter is of importance, I am not persuaded that this is a matter that calls for the attention of the Supreme Court of Appeal.  

[5]     Accordingly, leave to appeal is granted to the full bench of this division. Costs to be costs in the appeal.

_____________­­__

NG BESHE

JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT

APPEARANCES

For the Applicants       :           Adv: S Rorke SC

Instructed by                :           WESLEY PRETORIUS & ASSOCIATES INC.

C/o NETTELTONS ATTORNEYS                         

118A High Street

GRAHAMSTOWN

Ref: Mr M Nettelton/Liza

Tel.: 046 – 622 7149

For the Respondents    :           Adv: I J Smuts SC

Instructed by                :           WHEELDON RUSHMERE & COLE INC.

119 High Street

GRAHAMSTOWN

Ref: Mr Brody/Glyn/S23045

Email:  046 – 622 7005

Date Heard                  :           16 February 2021

Date Reserved             :           16 February 2021

Date Delivered             :           23 February 2021

[1] 2018 (1) SA 1 CC at 32 paragraphs 86 -88.