Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Others v Ndou and Another (076955/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 775 (11 August 2025)

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: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPJHC 775 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Others v Ndou and Another (076955/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 775 (11 August 2025) Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Others v Ndou and Another (076955/2025) [2025] ZAGPJHC 775 (11 August 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2025_775.html sino date 11 August 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO :  076955/2025 DATE :  25-06-2025 (1) REPORTABLE:  YES / NO. (2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:  YES / NO. (3) REVISED. In the matter between MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES PENSION FUND AND OTHERS                                                  Applicant and PHUMUDZO FARANANI NDOU AND ANOTHER    Respondent JUDGMENT KHAN, AJ :  Judgment in matter. This is an application for contempt that was launched on urgent grounds pursuant to a court order that was granted by my brother, Raubenheimer. The parties have filed substantial papers in this matter, and I have had regard to the papers and the versions that have been filed by the parties in this matter.  I do not wish to deliver an extensive judgment, because no doubt, anything that I say is going to have an impact on the next round of litigation between these parties as well as impending Legal Practice Council complaints. I am going to limit myself to the contempt aspect.  The starting point for this adjudication is that there is a court order and it must be complied with until set aside.  I have had regard to paragraph 2(1) of the court order which says that the respondent are interdicted from making, publishing, encouraging, repeating, or facilitating the publication and making of certain comments. There is various web pages interlinked to each other and websites that refer traffic from one link to another link.  In its replying affidavit the applicants have demonstrated that as of yesterday afternoon, there was still links between the respondents websites or websites under their control to a website that contained infringing material. I am not advised by counsel that there has been full compliance.  I am therefore satisfied that the applicants were proper in bringing their application before this Court and I am further satisfied that there has for a time-being been non-compliance with the court order of Judge Raubenheimer. Whether such court order is set aside in future is a matter for debate at that stage.  For now, I grant an order in terms of prayers one, prayers two, and prayers six of the draft orders. I am satisfied that the conduct of the respondents in this matter warrants a punitive cost order.  It is clear from the wording of the court order as well as the status of the respondents as attorneys who can readily read the caselaw that is available to them, that there ought to have been full compliance with the court order.  Therefore, a punitive cost order is warranted in this matter. I will ask counsel to amend their draft order to reflect prayers one, two, and six, and I will sign off on that order. KHAN, AJ ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT DATE :  ………………. sino noindex make_database footer start