It provides that Criminal. Section 2 of the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. In India the definition of contempt of court is found in clause (c) of. Typically, contempt of court can arise in multijurisdictional disputes. Where the party is a company, the consequences can affect not only the company itself and its assets, but also the individuals behind the company, including its directors. Contempt of Court: Report (pdf) In October 2018, the Victorian Law Reform Commission was asked to review and report on the law relating to contempt of court, the possible reform of the Judicial Proceedings Reports Act 1958, and the legal framework for enforcement of prohibitions or restrictions on the publication of information.If an order or an order for the specific performance of a contract is not obeyed, the court, besides or instead of proceeding against the disobedient person.5 July 2021 Jacob Zuma’s contempt of court: an attempted appeal masquerading as a rescission applicationcontempt of court if a party fails to comply with an English court order or injunction is very real.Proceedings for contempt by publication are generally brought before the Divisional Court, and permission is required to bring such proceedings. The current procedure is governed by Civil Procedure Rule 81 and the related Practice Direction. But does it have any prospect of success, and must the order now be implemented despite the fact that the Constitutional Court agreed to hear the rescission application?contempt does not require the consent of the Attorney to br. Mr Zuma’s application is an elaborate exercise in gaslighting, and contains numerous false and unsubstantiated claims.A court will only rescind an order in the most exceptional circumstancesIt is a guiding principle of the common law that once a judgment is given in a matter it is final. This means that unless Mr Zuma’s application to the High Court to stay the order is successful, the Minister of Police and the National Commissioner of the South African Police Service would be in contempt of the Constitutional Court order if they did not take all necessary steps to have Mr Zuma arrested by Wednesday. Moreover, in 2015 the Rules Board repealed the subrule that provided for automatic suspension of an order when a rescission application is launched.Given these developments, our courts now accept that a rescission application does not automatically suspend the order that is the subject of the application (see Erstwhile Tenants of Williston Court and Another v Lewray Investments (Pty) Ltd and Another). Section 18 of the Superior Courts Act (which came into effect in 2013) specifically excludes rescission applications from the general rule that an appeal automatically suspends a court order. 43.71 KB, for Standards for printing computer generated forms (Practice XXXIII Standards) (PDF 43.71 KB).Before 2013, there was some disagreement in our courts whether a rescission application automatically suspended a court order that is the subject of a rescission application.This merely restates the position enunciated by that court in Colyn v Tiger Food Industries Ltd t/a Meadow Feed Mills Cape).Second, rule 42(1)(a) does not apply to a situation where all affected parties were adequately notified of the relief that may be granted in their absence, and the notified party declined to participate in the proceedings. Specifically, the court held that an error by the party’s attorneys which led to the party not appearing at the hearing does not constitute a mistake in the proceedings nor an error in respect of the issue of the order. However, the case law appears to be against Mr Zuma on this point.First, late last year the SCA held in Van Heerden v Bronkhorstthat not every procedural violation of the rules results in an order “erroneously sought and erroneously granted”. An order is not “erroneously granted” when the affected party declines to participate in proceedingsMr Zuma argues that the order should be rescinded because it was erroneously granted (as provided for by rule 42(1)(a)) because Zuma was badly advised by his lawyers and material facts were not before the court because he did not participate in the proceedings. To the extent that Mr Zuma’s application argues that the majority judgment was wrong and that the minority judgment should have prevailed, it aims to sneak an appeal into its rescission application and will not fly. Rescission is for the correction of a mistake, not to substitute the courts original view about the law with one preferred by the affected party.
The fact that Mr Zuma now claims (without providing any evidence) that he suffers from bad health, and that he walked out of the Commission because he had to take his medication (not a claim that anyone wedded to the facts would have made), can therefore not be used in support of the rescission application as it would amount to an attempt to use the rescission application to sneak an appeal in via the backdoor. Such an order cannot be rescinded because it was “erroneously” made in their absence.In the case of Mr Zuma, those parts of his rescission application arguing that a rescission is warranted because the Constitutional Court failed to take into account certain facts which might have provided a valid defence to the finding of contempt, are not going to fly.Mr Zuma himself decided not to put these alleged facts before the court. The existence or non-existence of a defence on the merits is an irrelevant consideration and, if subsequently disclosed, cannot transform a validly obtained judgment into an erroneous judgment.The SCA confirmed this view in Freedom Stationery (Pty) Limited and Others v Hassam and Others when it stated that where an affected party “took the considered decision not to participate” an application, “they reconciled themselves with the reasonable prospect that the court could” make an adverse order against them. A court which grants a judgment by default like the judgments we are presently concerned with, does not grant the judgment on the basis that the defendant does not have a defence: it grants the judgment on the basis that the defendant has been notified of the plaintiff’s claim as required by the rules, that the defendant, not having given notice of an intention to defend, is not defending the matter and that the plaintiff is in terms of the rules entitled to the order sought. Allplan 2009 rapidshare sThe court held that while this procedure “constitutes a major inroad into” the rights of the affected party, it would be permissible in exceptional circumstances where there is a “pressing need for firm or swift measures to preserve the integrity of the judicial process”.The court pointed to the Zimbabwean judgment of In re: Chinamasa as a case where such “exceptional circumstances” would warrant imprisonment for contempt in civil proceedings. Our courts have previously considered the constitutionality of committing a contemnor for contempt in civil proceedings, and held that it is not unconstitutional to do so in specific circumstances.Thus, in S v Mamabolo the Constitutional Court considered whether it would ever be permissible for a court to find someone guilty of contempt (for scandalising the court) in civil contempt proceedings, and then to punish that person by imposing a fine or sending the contemnor to prison. This view seems to be based on the assumption that imprisonment for contempt in civil proceedings is never permitted in our law, but this assumption is wrong. Contempt Of Court Trial Judge HadIn short, it constituted “exceptional circumstances” which Mamabolo held would justify imprisonment in civil contempt proceedings. It arose after the then Zimbabwean Minister of Justice criticised a lenient sentence imposed by a Zimbabwean court on 3 US citizens, stating that the trial judge had “trivialised the crimes” by passing lenient sentences, that “the Attorney-General’s Office is left bemused by the meaninglessness of it all”, “that the leniency of the sentences constituted a betrayal of all civilised and acceptable notions of justice and of Zimbabwe’s sovereign interests”.As the majority of the Constitutional Court held in its recent judgment, Mr Zuma’s contempt constituted a full-frontal attack on the integrity of the judiciary (much like Minister Chinamase’s attack on the Zimbabwean court did) and thus required swift measures to preserve the integrity of the judicial process.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorEric ArchivesCategories |