Ferreira v Bezuidenhout

• Jurisdiction: South Africa

Ferreira v Bezuidenhout
1970 (1) SA 551 (O)

1970 (1) SA p551

Citation	1970 (1) SA 551 (O)
Court	Orange Free State Provincial Division
Judge	De Villiers J
Heard	November 27, 1969
Judgment	November 27, 1969

Flynote : Sleutelwoorde

Contempt of court — Respondent ordered to pay taxed bill of costs in H monthly instalments — Failure to do so — Order one ad pecuniam solvendam — Committal not competent — Quaere whether sec. 4 of Act 21 of 1942 applicable.

Headnote : Kopnota

The applicant had successfully sued the respondent for ejectment and had obtained an order for costs. These costs were taxed but not paid. In terms of Rule of Court 45 (12) (i) the respondent was ordered to pay the taxed bill in monthly instalments. He paid only one instalment. Applicant now applied for respondent's committal for contempt.

1970 (1) SA p552

Held, as the order was one ad pecuniam solvendam and not an order ad factum praestandum that an order for committal was not competent.

The question whether section 4 of Act 21 of 1942 was applicable raised but not decided. A

Case Information

Application for an order for committal for contempt. The facts appear from the reasons for judgment.

D. A. Kotze, for the applicant.

Judgment

B De Villiers, J.:

This is an application for committal for contempt which arises from the following circumstances: Applicant successfully sued respondent for ejectment and obtained an order of costs in her favour. The costs were duly taxed at the sum of R2,191.79 but not paid by respondent Respondent was thereupon ordered in terms of Rule of Court 45 (12) (i) to pay the amount of the taxed bill in monthly C instalments at the office of applicant's attorneys. Save for one payment respondent has not complied with the Court's order. In the application for committal applicant alleges that respondent is able to comply with the Court's order and that his failure to do so is wilful. This allegation is not denied by respondent.

The first question which arises is whether it is legally competent for D the Court to grant the order sought in view of the provisions of sec. 4 of Act 21 of 1942.

In three recent cases, namely Suidwestelike Transvaalse Landboukooperasie Bpk v Stolz, 1966 (4) SA 14 (GW); Knott v Tuck, 1968 (2) SA 495 (D); Walpamur Co. (Pty.) Ltd v September, 1969 (1) SA 643 (E) E , it was held that the said section, although purporting to deal with civil imprisonment, in effect precludes a Supreme Court from making an order for committal for contempt in the circumstances of the present case. A contrary view was taken in Stellenbosch Farmers' Winery (Edms.) Bpk v Goldberg, 1968 (2) SA 728 (T), and Singer's Estate v Kotze, 1960 (2) SA 304 (C), whereas the point was left open in F Metropolitan...