Fakie NO v CCII Systems (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

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.; O Rogers SC (with E Fagan) for the respondent.

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...