Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd
Jurisdiction | South Africa |
Citation | 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) |
Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd
2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA)
2006 (4) SA p326
Citation |
2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) |
Case No |
653/04 |
Court |
Supreme Court of Appeal |
Judge |
Howie P, Farlam JA, Cameron JA, Heher JA and Cachalia JA |
Heard |
February 15, 2006 |
Judgment |
March 31, 2006 |
Counsel |
G J Marcus SC (with M Sikhakhane) for the appellant. |
Flynote : Sleutelwoorde G
Contempt of court — Failure to comply with court order — Application for committal for contempt of High Court order — Standard of proof — Applicant for committal for contempt of court required to prove all elements of contempt beyond reasonable doubt — Once applicant proves court order, service of notice, and non-compliance, respondent bearing evidentiary burden to show reasonable possibility that H non-compliance not wilful or mala fide — Applicant seeking to commit Auditor-General for failure to comply with High Court order — Proven facts showing more than reasonable possibility that non-compliance neither wilful nor mala fide — Applicant thus failing to discharge onus of proof beyond reasonable I doubt — Auditor-General not guilty of contempt — Applicant nonetheless proving, on balance of probabilities, entitlement to declarator and directory order — Orders to issue.
Contempt of court — Failure to comply with court order — Application for committal for contempt — Civil contempt — Standard of proof — Proof beyond reasonable doubt required for civil contempt of court proceedings. J
2006 (4) SA p327
Headnote : Kopnota
The respondent in civil contempt proceedings was not an 'accused person' but was entitled to such analogous protections as A were appropriate to motion proceedings. In particular, the applicant had to prove the requisites of contempt (the order, service or notice, non-compliance and wilfulness and mala fides) beyond a reasonable doubt. But, once the applicant had proved the order, service or notice and non-compliance, the respondent bore an evidentiary burden in relation to wilfulness and mala fides: Should he fail to advance evidence that established a reasonable doubt as to B whether his non-compliance was wilful and mala fide, the applicant would have proved contempt beyond a reasonable doubt. A declarator and other appropriate remedies remained available to the applicant on proof on a balance of probabilities. In the present application, the proven facts established more than a reasonable doubt that the respondent acted wilfully and mala fides and, C consequently, he could not be found to be guilty of contempt of court. (Paragraphs [42] and [63] - [65] at 344H - 345B and 350C - F.)
The decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division in CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd v Fakie NO reversed.
Cases Considered
Annotations D
Reported cases
Southern African cases
Afrikaanse Pers-Publikasies (Edms) Bpk v Mbeki 1964 (4) SA 618 (A): referred to
Attorney-General v Crockett 1911 TPD 893: compared E
Bannatyne v Bannatyne (Commission for Gender Equality, as Amicus Curiae) 2003 (2) SA 363 (CC) (2003 (2) BCLR 111): referred to
Bernstein v Bester NO 1996 (2) SA 751 (CC): dictum in paras [145] - [146] applied
Botha v Dreyer (1880) 1 EDC 74: applied
Cape Times Ltd v Union Trades Directories (Pty) Ltd 1956 (1) SA 105 (N): referred to F
CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd v Fakie and Others NNO (Open Democracy Advice Centre, as Amicus Curiae) 2003 (2) SA 325 (T): referred to
Chinamora v Angwa Furnishers 1998 (2) SA 432 (ZS): referred to
Coetzee v Government of the Republic of South Africa; Matiso v Commanding Officer, Port Elizabeth Prison 1995 (4) SA 631 (CC) (1995 (10) BCLR 1382): referred to G
Consolidated Fish Distributors (Pty) Ltd v Zive and Others 1968 (2) SA 517 (C): referred to
De Lange v Smuts NO 1998 (3) SA 785 (CC): dictum in paras [22] - [25] and [147] applied
Federation of Governing Bodies of South African Schools (Gauteng) v MEC for Education, Gauteng 2002 (1) SA 660 (T): confirmed H
Frank v Ohlsson's Cape Breweries Ltd 1924 AD 289: dictum at 294 applied
Frankel Max Pollak Vinderine Inc v Menell Jack Hyman Rosenberg & Co Inc 1996 (3) SA 355 (A): dictum at 367H - I applied
In re Chinamasa 2001 (2) SA 902 (ZSC): referred to
In re Dormer (1891) 4 SAR 64: dictum at 85 applied I
Jayiya v Member of the Executive Council for Welfare, Eastern Cape 2004 (2) SA 611 (SCA) ([2003] 2 All SA 223): dicta in paras [18] and [19] applied
Laubscher v Laubscher 2004 (4) SA 350 (T): overruled
Nel v Le Roux 1996 (3) SA 562 (CC): compared
Noel Lancaster Sands (Edms) Bpk v Theron 1974 (3) SA 688 (T): referred to J
2006 (4) SA p328
Osman v Attorney-General, Transvaal 1998 (4) SA 1224 (CC) (1998 (2) SACR 493; 1998 (11) BCLR 1362): applied A
Peterson v Cuthbert & Co Ltd 1945 AD 420: dictum at 428 applied
Plascon-Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck Paints (Pty) Ltd 1984 (3) SA 623 (A): dictum at 634 - 5 applied
Putco Ltd v TV & Radio Guarantee Co (Pty) Ltd 1985 (4) SA 809 (A): referred to B
Room Hire Co (Pty) Ltd v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T): dictum at 1162 - 4 applied
S v Beyers 1968 (3) SA 70 (A): referred to
S v Dlamini; S v Dladla; S v Joubert; S v Schietekat 1999 (4) SA 623 (CC) (1999 (2) SACR 51; 1999 (7) BCLR 771): referred to
S v Mamabolo (E TV and Others Intervening) 2001 (3) SA 409 (CC): referred to C
S v Manamela 2000 (3) SA 1 (CC) (2000 (1) SACR 414): applied
S v Singo 2002 (4) SA 858 (CC) (2002 (2) SACR 160): applied
Uncedo Taxi Service Association v Maninjwa 1998 (3) SA 417 (E): confirmed
Uncedo Taxi Service Association v Mtwa 1999 (2) SA 495 (E): confirmed
Victoria Park Ratepayers Association v Greyvenouw CC [2004] 3 All SA 623 (SE): confirmed. D
Foreign cases
Hicks v Feiock 485 US 624 (1988): compared
International Union, United Mineworkers of America v Bagwell 512 US 821 (1993): referred to E
Re Bramblevale Ltd [1969] 3 All ER 1062 (CA): applied
Shillitani v United States 384 US 364 (1966): referred to
Videotron Ltée v Industries Microlec Produits Électroniques Inc (1992) 96 DLR (4th) 376 (SCC): followed
Witham v Holloway (1995) 131 ALR 401 (HC of A): applied.
Unreported cases F
Burchell v Burchell (ECD case No 364/2005, 3 November 2005): considered
Deyzel v Deyzel (TPD case No 19869/05, 21 December 2005): referred to.
Case Information
Appeal from a decision in the Transvaal Provincial Division (De Vos J). The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.
G J Marcus SC (with M Sikhakhane) for the appellant. G
O Rogers SC (with E Fagan) for the respondent.
In addition to the authorities cited in the judgment of the Court, counsel for the parties referred to the following:
Aberdare Cables (Africa) (Pty) Ltd v South African Railways and Harbours 1959 (2) SA 406 (E) H
Abrams v McQuirk 1927 WLD 318
Apple Computer v Mackintosh Computer Ltd [1988] 3 FC 277 (CA)
Bater v Bater [1950] 2 All ER 458 (CA) at 459B - F
Beinash v Wixley 1997 (3) SA 721 (SCA)
Brown v Le Roux and Others 1906 TS 857 at 860 I
Butchart Butchart 1996 (2) SA 581 (W) at 586
Carmichele v Minister of Safety and Security 2001 (4) SA 938 (CC) at paras [21] - [24]
Clement v Clement 1961 (3) SA 861 (T) at 866A
Comet Products UK Ltd v Hawkex Plastics Ltd [1971] 1 All ER 1062 (CA) at 1143j J
2006 (4) SA p329
Culverwell v Beira 1992 (4) SA 490 (W) at 493E
First National Bank of SA Ltd v Van Rensburg A NO and Others: In re First National Bank of Southern Africa v Jurgens and Others 1994 (1) SA 677 (T) at 681B - F
Groenewald v Fourie 1915 CPD 556
Hinch and Macquarie Broadcasting Holdings Ltd v Attorney-General for the State of Victoria (1987) 164 CLR 15 at 49 B
Holtz v Douglas & Associates (OFS) CC 1991 (2) SA 797 (O) at 802
Loomcraft Fabrics CC v Nedbank Ltd and Another 1996 (1) SA 812 (A) at 817G - H
Maison des Semiconductuers Lteé v Apple Computer Inc [1988] 3 FC 277 (CA) C
Microsoft Corporation and Another v Marks (1996) 139 ALR 99 (FCA) at 115 - 16
Naidu v Naidoo 1993 (4) SA 542 (D) at 544 - 5
Naude en 'n Ander v Searle 1970 (1) SA 388 (O) at 392A - E
Oriel v Russel (1929) 278 US 358 D
Permanent Secretary, Department of Welfare, Eastern Cape Provincial Government and Another v Ngxuza and Others 2001 (4) SA 1184 (SCA) (2001 (10) BCLR 1039) at paras [21] - [24]
Rollo-Wilke v MacMillan 1928 WLD 47
S v Baloyi 2000 (2) SA 425 (CC) at para [22] fn 51 E
S v Jama and Another 1998 (2) SACR 237 (N) at 242I
S v Lubaxa 2001 (4) SA 1251 (SCA) at paras [18] - [19]
S v Mathebula and Another 1997 (1) SACR 10 (W) at 35J - 36C
Selection Testing Consultations Ltd v Humanex International Inc [1987] 2 FC 405
Thomas Bates & Son Ltd v Wyndham's (Lingerie) Ltd [1981] 1 All ER 1077 (CA) at 784d F
Townsend-Turner and Another v Morrow 2004 (2) SA 32 (C) at 49A - E
Trencor Services (Pty) Ltd v Muller t/a SA Trucking Ltd 1983 (4) SA 893 (C) at 894F - G and 903H - 904E
Turner v Llewellyn and Wiggington (1905) 22 SC 430
Verkouteren v Savage 1918 TPD 62 at 68 G
Vermeulen v Heyne 1913 AD 542.
Cur adv vult.
Postea (March 31). H
Judgment
Cameron JA:
[1] In the Pretoria High Court, De Vos J held the appellant, the Auditor-General, [1] in contempt of an order of Court. As a sanction she imposed one month's imprisonment on him, I suspended on condition
2006 (4) SA p330
Cameron JA
that he comply fully with the order within four weeks of the date of her judgment. This is an appeal with her leave A against that order.
[2] The dispute has its origin in a Cabinet decision in June 1997 to buy military equipment. The purchases (the 'strategic defence packages') were put out to tender: they included four corvettes. The respondent (CCII), a supplier of military software and computer B systems, was a (partially) unsuccessful bidder for a sub-contract in relation to the corvettes. Following widespread claims that...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma
...and the Prosecutor-General 1998 NR 282 (SC) ([1995] 3 LRC 507; 1995 (8) BCLR 1070): applied Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA): dictum in para [55] Gates v Gates 1939 AD 150: referred to D Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A): dictum at 607 applied ......
-
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma
...and the Prosecutor-General 1998 NR 282 (SC) ([1995] 3 LRC 507; 1995 (8) BCLR 1070): applied E Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA): dictum in para [55] Gates v Gates 1939 AD 150: referred to Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A): dictum at 607 applied ......
-
2016 index
...Suid-Afrikaanse Uitsaaikorporasie 1992 (4) SA 804 (A) ........................................ 233FFakie No v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) ................ 153Falk v NDPP [2011] ZACC 26, 2012 (1) SACR 265 (CC), 2011 (11) BCLR 1134 (CC) (16 August 2011) ............................
-
Department of Transport and Others v Tasima (Pty) Ltd
...and Others 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) (2016 (5) BCLR 618; [2016] ZACC 11) : dictum in para [74] applied I Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) ([2006] ZASCA 54): dictum in para [6] applied Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) (1997 (7) BCLR 851; J [1997] ......
-
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma
...and the Prosecutor-General 1998 NR 282 (SC) ([1995] 3 LRC 507; 1995 (8) BCLR 1070): applied Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA): dictum in para [55] Gates v Gates 1939 AD 150: referred to D Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A): dictum at 607 applied ......
-
National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma
...and the Prosecutor-General 1998 NR 282 (SC) ([1995] 3 LRC 507; 1995 (8) BCLR 1070): applied E Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA): dictum in para [55] Gates v Gates 1939 AD 150: referred to Gentiruco AG v Firestone SA (Pty) Ltd 1972 (1) SA 589 (A): dictum at 607 applied ......
-
Department of Transport and Others v Tasima (Pty) Ltd
...and Others 2016 (3) SA 580 (CC) (2016 (5) BCLR 618; [2016] ZACC 11) : dictum in para [74] applied I Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) ([2006] ZASCA 54): dictum in para [6] applied Fose v Minister of Safety and Security 1997 (3) SA 786 (CC) (1997 (7) BCLR 851; J [1997] ......
-
PL v YL
...Ltd and Others Intervening; Venter and Spain v Povey and Others 1982 (2) SA 94 (D): referred to Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA): referred to Firestone South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Genticuro AG 1977 (4) SA 298 (A): referred to E Fluxman v Fluxman 1958 (4) SA 409 (W): refe......
-
2016 index
...Suid-Afrikaanse Uitsaaikorporasie 1992 (4) SA 804 (A) ........................................ 233FFakie No v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) ................ 153Falk v NDPP [2011] ZACC 26, 2012 (1) SACR 265 (CC), 2011 (11) BCLR 1134 (CC) (16 August 2011) ............................
-
Investigating the need to introduce Compulsory Interest arbitration as a method to prevent lengthy strikes in South Africa
...Workers Union v In2food at 2771H-J.39Food and Allied Workers Union v In2food at 2773J–2774A.40Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd (2006) 4 SA 326 (SCA) at 333E. See also SecurityServices Employers’ Organisation and Others v SA Transport and Allied Workers Union & others(2007) 28 ILJ 1134 (LC)......
-
Considering parental alienation under the aegis of the criminal law
...r supra (n50); Pheko & Others v Ekurhule ni City 2015 (5) SA 600 (CC) at paras [28] and [30]; Fak ie No v CCII System s (Pty) Ltd 2006 (4) SA 326 (SCA) at 333; S v Beyer s [19 68] 3 All SA 213 (A). In JC v DC 2014 (2) SA 138 (WCC) a punitive cost order was awa rded and in Gumbi v Goba s upr......
-
Contempt and execution in vindicating the right to education
...for the poorest of the poor’ (2005)21SAJHR 215 at 233-238.[2013] ZAGPPHC 199 (N Gauteng HC), citing Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd 2006 4 SA 32622(SCA); S v Sigwahla 1967 4 SA 566 (A); S v De Bruyn 1968 4 SA 498 (C); and S v NguBane 1985 3 SA677 (A).Tasima (n 22) para 79.23Metropolitan I......