IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between:
 
and

MOSES JOHANNES WILDERMANS PLUS 

JUDGMENT

DAVIS, J

Needless to say little appeared to be done in that there had only been partial compliance with these orders. The matter was then heard by the Court on 14 December 2007. On that date a further order was made, in terms of which the respondents were ordered to provide the applicant with the minutes of all the meetings held and conducted in the name of first respondent from 18 December 2004 to date and all of first respondent's financial statements, whether audited or not, for the period between 28 February 2006 to 7 February 2007.

Once again it was alleged by applicant that there was only partial compliance with this order. Pursuant to these allegations of noncompliance, applicant has brought on the application to hold the respondents in contempt of court.

There have been numerous hearings and further discussions in chambers pursuant to this dispute, almost all of which represented an attempt by this Court to settle this dispute without the necessity of a hearing regarding contempt proceedings. However, applicant has continued to persist in his contentions that respondents have failed to comply with the orders to which I have made reference and, in particular, the order of this Court of 14 December 2007. It has therefore become necessary for this Court to decide this matter and to bring it to a measure of finality.

There are two sets of arguments which have raged between the parties, one dealing with the minutes to which I have made reference and the other dealing with the question of the financial statements. I shall deal first with the minutes.

"We have once again consulted with our client and we are of the opinion this matter should be settled between the parties to curtail costs. Our
client proposes the following 	   All minutes of

meetings on any event available for perusal."

Turning to the question of the financial statements, respondents' defence was in essence that throughout 2006 first respondent had been involved in very little economic activity, obviating the need for accounts to be prepared. No bank statements were available because any cash that was received from members by the association was kept by the association's treasurer.

I am also prepared to accept that there may have been some ambiguity with regard to the order insofar as minutes of 2007 are concerned although for reasons that will become apparent presently I am not prepared to leave the matter there.

Turning to the financial statements I consider that there has been a blatant disregard of the Court orders, to the extent that the least one could have expected from the respondents, after the sheer weight of demand and litigation was that it, to provide evidence from the applicable bank that there had been no bank statements for the period under review. To the extent, given all the opportunity that I had given to the parties to settle this matter, that evidence was the least that could have been expected form respondents to show that no financial activity took place in 2006 Simply to continue to insist that no activity took place when applicant has provided at least some existence of members subscriptions having been paid is an act in contempt of three court orders granted and during which period the Courts have shown extraordinary patience in seeking to ensure compliance therewith.

The question arises as to an appropriate order under these circumstances. On the basis of what I have already said there has been an attempt, or at least a plausible version at explaining why substantial compliance with the order have been undertaken. To impose a harsh sanction on the breaches would be disproportional to the misconduct.

For these reasons the following order is made:
1.	
2.	

3. 	The financial and organisational state of first respondent is 	hereby referred to the Provincial Registrar of Taxis 	Association who is instructed to produce a report within three 	months of this court order and to provide such report to this 	Court, which will then determine any further course of 	conduct which may be applicable to the dispute.

4.	There is no order as to costs, save for today's hearing, being 	26 May 2008 in which respondents jointly and severally, each 	to pay the other to be absorbed, are ordered to pay applicant's costs.