Joubert v Black Rhino Game Lodge (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (083030/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1181 (21 November 2024)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2024 >> [2024] ZAGPPHC 1181 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Joubert v Black Rhino Game Lodge (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (083030/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1181 (21 November 2024) Joubert v Black Rhino Game Lodge (Pty) Ltd and Others (Leave to Appeal) (083030/2023) [2024] ZAGPPHC 1181 (21 November 2024) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2024_1181.html sino date 21 November 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA) Case No: 083030/2023 (1) REPORTABLE: NO (2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: NO (3) REVISED SIGNATURE: DATE: 21 NOVEMBER 2024 In the matter between: MARTIN KYLE JOUBERT Applicant and BLACK RHINO GAME LODGE (PTY) LTD First Respondent MIKHAIL JOUBERT Second Respondent ODETTE OCTAVIA JOUBERT Third Respondent ODETTE OCTAVIA JOUBERT N.O. (In her capacity as the executrix in the estate late Hendrik Petrus Joubert) Fourth Respondent BIG NAME INVESTMENTS 1025 Fifth Respondent CIPC Sixth Respondent MASTER OF THE HIGH COURT Seventh Respondent MARMICO FAMILY TRUST (IT 12757/96) Eighth Respondent ODETTE OCTAVIA JOUBERT N.O. (Trustee of the Marmico Trust) Ninth Respondent HENDRIK PETRUS JOUBERT N.O. Tenth Respondent This judgment is prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected as such and is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties / their legal representatives by email and by uploading it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The date for handing down is deemed to be  21 November 2024. LEAVE TO APPEAL: SHORT REASONS RETIEF J [1] The applicant applies for leave to the Full Court of this Division against the whole of the judgment and orders handed down on the  24 October 2024 in which, the applicants contempt application was dismissed and the first, second and respondents’ [respondents] application to stay the execution of an order granted by Hassim AJ (as she then was), on the 29 August 2023 pending the finalisation of Part B in the main application [Hassim order]. The main application has been set down for adjudication in April 2025. [2] The judgment and order dealt with the outcome of two applications. Such applications for ease of reference were, in the body of the judgment, referred to as the contempt relief and the stay relief. Such reference will be persist herein. The nature of the stay relief was interim and was granted pending the outcome of Part B of the main application. [3] The short reasons which follow are to be read with the judgment and are merely provided as further explanation, arising from oral argument. Of importance in considering the grounds raised and argued is that in the contempt relief, other than to declare the respondents in contempt of the Hassim order, the applicant sought a determination of a monetary claim. The call for committal flowing any default by the respondents to pay such monetary claim once awarded. The  respondents were therefore not, at the time the contempt application was launched indebted to pay a specific amount to a specific creditor. [4] It flows then, that at the time the stay relief was launched, there was nothing for the respondents to specifically obey and make right obliging this Court not to entertain and enforce the stay relief. The dignity of the Court undisturbed. The applicant, other than calling for the respondents to pay a prospect monetary claim to be determined, did not call for any other desistance and or action/s from the respondents which they could obey before they themselves requested the stay relief. [5] If the contempt relief was successful, then in terms of prayer 8 of the Hassim order, “ -the party receiving the money shall make repayment to the First, Fifth or Eighth Respondent, as applicable .” The Hassim order does not deal with the payment of a specific debt amount to a specific creditor, but merely appears to create an obligation to pay, if contempt established. This the applicant’s argue is an ad factum praestandum . This reasoning appears correct however, this is not the obligation which is relied on and what according to the applicant should trigger the committal. The applicant does not request committal for the failure to honour an obligation to pay a debt  when called upon, when he launched the contempt relief. He could not have, such debt and failure to pay not established yet. The applicant specifically sought committal based only on the failure by the respondents to repay the specific awarded amounts to specific creditors within 48 hours of the granting of the contempt relief itself ( ad pecuniam solvendam) .  Such committal following and flowing from a possible future default of payment, such possible future default arising from the contempt order as a result of the contempt application. The dismissal of the contempt relief as dealt with in the judgment should stand. [6] Therefore considering the above, considering the arguments raised, considering the submissions in support of the interest of justice advanced by the applicant’s Counsel in respect of the stay relief and having reconsidered the reasoned judgment this Court is of the opinion that the appeal would not have a reasonable prospect of success and as such, the applicant has not met the threshold of Section 17 of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 . [7] The following order: 1.    The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two Counsel, taxed on scale C. L.A. RETIEF JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Appearances : For the Applicant:                            Adv JP Vorster SC Email: vorsterj@law.co.za Cell: 072 288 6927 Adv T Odendaal Email: tatum@chambersa.co.za Cell: 083 451 9568 Instructed by attorneys:                  Joshua Lazarus Incorporated Email: joshua@lazarusjoshuaattorneys.com Tel: 079 494 8019 For Respondent 1 to 5 & 8 to10:   Adv Henno Viljoen Email: hmviljoen@law.co.za Cell: 083 400 1620 Adv Nikola Daniels Email: ndaniels@maisels.co.za Cell: 083 604 0357 Instructed by attorneys:                  OWP Attorneys Brett Tate Email: brett.tate@owppartners.com Cell: 082 331 3110 Date of hearing:                               21 November 2024 Date of handed down :                   21 November 2024 sino noindex make_database footer start