1.

1. Ever since the Constitutional Court decision in Secretary of the Judicial Commission Of Enquiry Into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud In Public Sector Including Organs of State –v- Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma and Others [2021] ZACC 18 (25 March 2021), one would have noted an increased proliferation of contempt of court proceedings being argued in the High Court of South Africa.
2. Aggrieved by non-compliance with orders of the court, many judgment creditors now simply resort to filing contempt of court proceedings in which they seek orders holding judgment debtors to be in contempt of the Orders of the Court on an urgent basis.
3. In addition, relief is also sought for an Order of the Court affording the judgment debtors a further opportunity to purge their default and avoid incarceration by simply complying with the relevant Court Order.
4. Contempt of court proceedings are therefore resorted to primarily as a means to enforce court orders since incarceration is resorted to only in the event of the judgment debtor persisting in open defiance of the authority of the Court by remaining in contempt.
5. The jurisprudential justification for contempt of court proceedings is found in the argument that to imprison a judgment debtor under such circumstances will serve to redeem the Constitutional mandate and authority of the Court as well as the rule of law which underlies it.
6. Because the authority of the court underlies our Constitutional order, applications meant to redeem such authority are inherently urgent and can be argued under the provisions of Uniform Rule 6 (12).
7. Borrowing from the words of HON KHAMPEMPE ADCJ, then dealing with the question of urgency in such proceedings, in Secretary of the Judicial Commission Of Enquiry Into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud In Public Sector Including Organs of State –v- Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma and Others [2021] ZACC 18 (25 March 2021), it is important to note that:

   “[35] . . . . I feel compelled to dispose this argument, at this earliest opportunity to clarify that, whatever this court decided to do, it is to be done on an urgent basis.”

2.

1. It should therefore not matter when the contempt took place nor how long the judgment debtor may have been in such contempt.
2. Opposing arguments regarding dilatoriness are thus no bar to approaching the court in terms of Uniform Rule 6 (12). In any event, dilatoriness alone does not take away urgency.
3. In 10 & 10a Kenmere CC –v- Ndebele Zandile & Others [Case No: 2018 / 31110 : Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg) 19 June 2019, HON LT MODIBA J had the following to state regarding dilatoriness in bringing urgent applications:

   “[17] The applicant has been dilatory in its conduct of the application. The opposing respondents filed their answering affidavit on 28 October 2018. It appears that for a period of almost four months, the applicant took no further step to bring this application. This, the court frowns upon. Be that as it may, it is trite that an applicant is not denied urgent hearing solely because it delayed to bring the application. . .”

4. Following on the above authority, even if it is argued that there was dilatoriness in bringing the application for contempt [or any other urgent application at that], that alone does not mean that an Applicant for Urgent Application be denied urgent hearing.
5. With regard to urgency in contempt of court proceedings, the authorities are settled. Contempt proceedings are by their very nature urgent.
6. In Protea Holdings –v- Wriwt 1978 (3) SA 865 (W) at 867G this court wrote:

   “The element of urgency would be satisfied if in fact it was shown that the respondents were continuing to disregard the order... if this be so, the applicant is entitled as a matter of urgency, to attempt to get the Respondent to desist by the penalty referred to being imposed.”

7. In Victoria Park Ratepayers Association –v- Greyvenouw CC 2004 JDR 0498 [SE], the court was more emphatic on the point and said:

   “Contempt of court has obvious implications for the effectiveness and legitimacy of the legal system and the judicial arm of government. There is thus a public interest element in each and every case in which it is alleged that a party has wilfully and in bad faith ignored or otherwise failed to comply with a court order. This added element provides to every such case an element of urgency.”

8. To seal any argument relating to urgency, the court went further to state:

   “It is not only the object of punishing a Respondent to compel him or her to obey an order that renders contempt proceedings urgent: the public interest in the administration of justice and the vindication of the Constitution also renders the ongoing failure or refusal to obey an order of court, a matter of urgency. This in my view is the starting point: all matters in which an ongoing contempt of an order is brought to the attention of the court must be dealt with as expeditiously as the circumstances and dictates of fairness allow.”

9. In the most recent case of Secretary of the Judicial Commission Of Enquiry Into Allegations of State Capture, Corruption and Fraud In Public Sector Including Organs of State –v- Jacob Gedleyihlekisa Zuma and Others [2021] ZACC 18 (25 March 2021), the Constitutional Court, dealing with the question of urgency in contempt of court proceedings, had the following to state, which should put any argument on lack of urgency to rest:

   “[34] Accordingly, I am enjoined to take stock of the relentlessness of the alleged contempt at issue. It cannot be gainsaid that the longer Mr Zuma’s recalcitrance is allowed to sit in the light, and heat of the day, so the threat faced by the rule of law and the administration of justice, curdles. The ongoing defiance of this court’s order, by its very nature, renders this matter urgent. In fact, rarely do matters arrive at the door of this court so deserving of decisive and urgent intervention . . .”

10. The Constitutional Court went further, after considering the minority ruling, to state as follows:

    “[35] . . . . I feel compelled to dispose this argument, at this earliest opportunity to clarify that, whatever this court decided to do, it is to be done on an urgent basis. In the light of all of the above, let me reiterate that it is the continued and persistent contemptuous conduct that renders this matter urgent because its persistence risks denigrating the rule of law and the authority of the judiciary. Accordingly, it is not the lifespan of the Commission alone that justifies urgency, but rather the need to put to an end Mr Zuma’s contempt and vindicate the authority of the court.”

11. There can be no other way of looking at it—contempt proceedings aimed at redeeming the authority of the court can only be regarded as urgent. Every day that passes while a respondent remains in contempt constitutes an erosion of our rule of law and should thus be curtailed without delay.
12. Whether or not the court, on later consideration of the merits, may later find that there is no contempt, the point remains that “whatever the court decided to do, it must do it on an urgent basis.”
13. One can thus authoritatively conclude that contempt of court proceedings are inherently urgent.

“When in doubt Seek Counsel”

BY COUNSEL:
ADV ISIAH MURERIWA.
+27 71 151 9000, advmureriwa@yahoo.com
PRETORIA.
29 DECEMBER 2022.