Case Law[2024] ZAWCHC 307South Africa
R.K v I.K (Sanction) (17760/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 307 (25 September 2024)
Judgment
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: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
You are here:
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
>>
2024
>>
[2024] ZAWCHC 307
|
Noteup
|
LawCite
sino index
## R.K v I.K (Sanction) (17760/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 307 (25 September 2024)
R.K v I.K (Sanction) (17760/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 307 (25 September 2024)
Download original files
PDF format
RTF format
make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAWCHC/Data/2024_307.html
sino date 25 September 2024
SAFLII
Note:
Certain
personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been
redacted from this document in compliance with the law
and
SAFLII
Policy
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
WESTERN
CAPE DIVISION,
CAPE
TOWN
Case
No.:
17760/2019
In
the matter between:
R[…]
K[…]
Applicant
and
I[…]
K[…]
Respondent
JUDGMENT
(Sanction)
ANDREWS,
AJ
[1]
The Respondent was declared
in contempt of court on 3 September 2020, pursuant to a Rule 43 order
granted on 12 April 2017. He was
sentenced to a period of 30 (thirty)
days’ imprisonment which was wholly suspended subject to
certain conditions, which were
not complied with. The Applicant
launched an application to direct the Registrar to issue a writ of
commitment for contempt of
court, committing the Respondent to
imprisonment for a period of thirty (30) days, which application was
opposed.
[2]
The matter was fully
argued. Judgment in this matter was handed down on 20 June
2024. The matter was adjourned for a Trustee’s
Report and
Correctional Supervision Report after finding that direct
imprisonment would not be an appropriate sanction, given the
changed
circumstances and dire health conditions of the Respondent.
[3]
The Trustees Report dated 4
July 2024 together with the Trustees Second Meeting Report to
Creditors dated 5 July 2023, elucidated
the following salient
information, namely that:
1.
the Applicant lodged a claim against the
Insolvent Estate for an amount of R1 631 343.85 (“the
claim”);
2.
the Applicant’s claim was not submitted to
“proof and proved”
(sic)
at a Meeting of Creditors due to a danger of a contribution on proved
concurrent creditors;
3.
the Applicant was advised of the position and
failed to respond to the trustees when she was requested to confirm
whether she still
required them to prove her claim notwithstanding
the danger of a contribution;
4.
unless further assets are recovered, there is no
prospect of a concurrent dividend being paid to creditors of the
estate including
the Applicant.
[4]
At the commencement of the
proceedings, the court was alerted to the fact that the
curator
bonis
of the insolvent (the Respondent)
raised various objections to the first liquidation and distribution
account. Nothing turns on
this additional information as the gravamen
of the Trustees Report is that the estate will not be in a position
to pay the Applicant’s
claim, or any part thereof.
[5]
In considering an
appropriate sanction, this Court is mindful of the dual purpose of
contempt proceedings. In this regard, the sentence
to be imposed
should ideally contain both a punitive and coercive element. It is
therefore clear that to commit the Respondent
to a term of
imprisonment in these circumstances can be likened to attempting to
squeeze water from a stone.
[6]
Notwithstanding, the
Respondent cannot be absolved from the consequence of punishment. The
Respondent was found to be a suitable
candidate to be placed under
Correctional Supervision. The Constitutional Court has described this
form of sentence as “an
innovative form of sentence”
which is flexible to meet the specific circumstances of each
offender’s case.
[7]
The matter of costs stood
over for later determination. It is trite that the issue of costs
falls within the discretion of the court
which must be exercised
judicially. The Respondent was placed under curatorship by an Order
of Court granted on 30 October 2023
under case number 17174/2023.
Therefore, in the exercise of my discretion, in the circumstances of
this matter, I am of the view
that there should be no order as to
costs.
Order:
[8]
After having heard Counsel
for the Applicant and Counsel for the Respondent, and having
considered the document filed on record,
the court directs that:
1.
In terms of Section 276(1)(h) the Respondent is
sentenced to 30 (thirty) days Correctional Supervision. The
court further
orders that the Respondent subjects himself to:
(a)
House arrest for the duration of 30 (thirty) days
with a maximum of 24 hours per day, except for the purposes of
medical care (if
needed), collecting his social grant, church
attendance, and other purposes to fulfil the aims of correctional
supervision.
(b)
The Respondent is ordered to report to the
Correctional Office, Cape Town Community Corrections within 5 (five)
days from date of
receipt of this order and thereafter on the days,
time(s) and place(s) as determined by the Commissioner or his
delegate.
(c)
The Respondent is to comply with any reasonable
orders regarding the compliance and administration of this sentence
when issued
by the Commissioner or his delegate.
(d)
The Respondent is to inform the Commissioner or
his delegate immediately in writing of any change of his residential
address.
2.
This programme of Correctional Supervision may be
ameliorated or relaxed in order to fulfil the aims of correctional
service provided
that the period of house arrest is not shortened by
more than a third.
3.
No order as to costs.
P
ANDREWS, AJ
Acting
Judge of the High Court
Western
Cape Division
APPEARANCES
:
Counsel
for the Applicant:
Attorney C Beirowski
Instructed
by:
Beirowski Attorneys
Counsel
for the Respondent:
Advocate P Tredoux
Instructed
by:
Neville Cohen & Associates
Hearing
date:
19 September 2024
Judgment
Delivered:
25 September 2024
NB:
The judgment is delivered
by electronic submission to the parties and their legal
representatives.
sino noindex
make_database footer start
Similar Cases
R.K v I.K (17760/2019) [2024] ZAWCHC 306 (20 June 2024)
[2024] ZAWCHC 306High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
S.K v R.K (6170/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 162 (6 May 2024)
[2024] ZAWCHC 162High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
L.M v R.K (9236/2014) [2022] ZAWCHC 1; [2022] 1 All SA 738 (WCC) (19 January 2022)
[2022] ZAWCHC 1High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
B.K v K.M and Another (6027/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 306 (24 November 2023)
[2023] ZAWCHC 306High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar
R.A v I.K (8953/2020) [2025] ZAWCHC 123 (19 March 2025)
[2025] ZAWCHC 123High Court of South Africa (Western Cape Division)98% similar