In the recent judgment handed down in the High Court of South Africa, North West Division, Mahikeng, Ferroflow (Pty) Ltd v Maebane and Others (Case No: 2026-191373), the Court was called upon to decide whether the brazen and sustained defiance of a court order resulted in contempt of court beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ferroflow (Pty) Ltd (the applicant) operates a chrome beneficiation and washing plant in the North West Province (the plant) on behalf of a third party, RGN Mining (Pty) Ltd. Mr Simon Mpatlane Maebane (the first respondent), is the sole director and shareholder of SMG Mining (Pty) Ltd (the second respondent), which he alleges holds 40% of the shareholding in the applicant. The business relationship between the parties arose from a Memorandum of Undertaking that was concluded on or about 6 June 2023. This relationship between the parties soured by August 2026. During May 2026, the first respondent issued a series of statements on social media indicating that he intended to remove the sole director of the applicant, Mr Daniel Petrus Johannes Botha (Mr Botha), by force and that he had conducted an investigation in preparation for doing so.
On 7 August 2026, the applicant instituted an urgent ex parte application seeking an interim interdict that the first and second respondents as well as all persons acting in concert with or at their instance from inter alia blockading or interfering with the plant, its operations or its personnel. The court granted an interim interdict and issued a rule nisi returnable on 29 October 2026 (Wessels AJ Order). The Wessels AJ Order recorded that the interim relief operates against the respondents from date of grant but is enforceable against them by way of contempt of court from date of service or from the date the order is brought to their attention. The Wessels AJ Order and the application papers were served by email and WhatsApp on the first respondent on 8 August 2026. The sheriff thereafter served the Wessels AJ Order on the first respondent on 11 August 2026, and on the second respondent on 12 August 2026. The first respondent also confirmed to the sheriff that he had received the Wessels AJ Order and the application papers by email.
What followed was a sustained and escalating campaign of unlawful conduct at the plant: locks were broken on multiple occasions, a copy of the order was torn up in the presence of a witness, the plant entrances were obstructed, mine material was dumped and tyres set alight at the plant’s entrances. The first respondent was personally present during most of these activities. The applicant brought this urgent application for contempt of court (contempt application) which was opposed by the first and second respondents on 18 August 2026. On the same day, the first and second respondents delivered an application for reconsideration of the Wessels AJ Order. The reconsideration application was argued on 19 August 2026 and was dismissed. The first and second respondents accordingly delivered an answering affidavit in the contempt application on 20 August 2026, a day before the hearing, without any explanation for the delay or condonation application.
The court was asked to determine the following issues: urgency; the applicant’s locus standi; and whether the four requirements for contempt were established beyond a reasonable doubt:
- the existence of the order;
- knowledge of it;
- non-compliance; and
- wilfulness and mala fides.
Urgency, locus standi and contempt of court
The applicant’s submissions were that the requirements for contempt were established beyond a reasonable doubt: the Wessels AJ Order was unambiguous; the first and second respondents admitted its terms and their knowledge of it; and non-compliance is established by contemporaneous video and photographic evidence. On the first and second respondent’s own version, incriminating evidence has substantially been admitted. Wilfulness and mala fides are established affirmatively because the threat assessment report predates the Wessels AJ Order by more than two months and the first respondent has advanced a false alibi under oath which the first respondent’s own annexures falsify. A wholly suspended order of committal would be an inadequate sanction given the pre-meditated violent and continued defiance of the court’s authority together with the false alibi. Additionally, a cost order on the attorney and client scale including the costs of two counsel is warranted by the first and second respondent’s conduct of the litigation.
The first and second respondent’s submissions were that the applicant lacks the locus standi to bring this application because the second respondent as a 40% shareholder of the applicant was not party to the resolution authorising it. Furthermore, no evidence has been pleaded that the first and second respondents deliberately disobeyed the Wessels AJ Order. The security personnel at the plant lawfully guarding the second respondent’s property were deployed on legal advice that the first and second respondent stay away from the plant pending the resolution of the dispute. The application should be dismissed with costs on the punitive scale as an abuse of this court’s process.
The court found that urgency was firmly established, given that the applicant was wholly excluded from its own plant and contractually exposed to RGN Mining (Pty) Ltd with every passing day. The applicant cannot sensibly be expected to remain excluded from its own plant and to suffer continuing and in material respects irreversible loss for that period. What is more is that there is an inherent public interest in the prompt vindication of a disregarded order of court.
In respect of locus standi, the court found that a minority shareholder holds no power to veto litigation by the company. To hold otherwise would mean no company could ever litigate against its own shareholder without that shareholder’s consent.
Merits Findings
The court found that all four requisites for contempt were established beyond reasonable doubt against the first respondent. The first respondent’s claim that the persons at the plant were merely “securities” guarding the second respondent’s property was itself an admission of breach, as no prior written consent from the applicant had been obtained. Critically, the court found that the first respondent’s alibi — that he was outside the North West Province — to be “demonstrably false”, contradicted by his own WhatsApp posts, his own signed resolution placing him at Bokamoso the day before, and independent witness testimony. The court further found that the first respondent had effectively held the applicant’s product to ransom, offering to release it only upon payment of “his 40%”.
The court ultimately found the first respondent to be in contempt of the Wessels AJ Order and sentenced the first respondent to 30 days’ imprisonment, suspended for 12 months on strict conditions including: immediate and unconditional withdrawal of the first respondent and all persons acting in concert with or at his instance from the plant; removal of all obstructions to access the plant including locks, mine material or debris within 48 hours of this order; full compliance by the first respondent, second respondent and all persons acting in concert with or at the instance of either of them with the Wessels AJ Order for the period of the suspension; and the first respondent commits no further breach of this order or the Wessels AJ Order for the period of suspension. The first and second respondents were also directed to pay the costs of this contempt application jointly and severally on the attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.
Conclusion
The court’s closing remarks serve as a stern reminder: if a court order “can be met with broken locks, a torn-up copy, burning tyres and a false alibi … the order was worth nothing at all, and this Court’s authority worth less”. The judgment reinforces the principle that self-help is impermissible in our constitutional order, and that a litigant aggrieved by an interdict must seek recourse through the courts, not through force.
The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.
[View Source]
