Johannesburg Tenant Loses Contempt Case After Landlord Unable to Name Car Remover

Contempt Application Dismissed in High Court

The South Gauteng High Court has dismissed a contempt of court application brought by Renias Mutshipisi against Greg Shering, the landlord of a property where Mutshipisi’s car was taken by a stranger. The case highlights the limits of what a court can require in compliance and the importance of proving willful disobedience in contempt proceedings.

How the Dispute Began

The dispute stemmed from a vacant Johannesburg property leased from Shering, where Mutshipisi’s car was left by his friend, Jamaine Mazambani. After Mazambani’s lease ended, several vehicles and rubble remained on the property. Shering made repeated efforts to have Mazambani remove them without success. Surveying the scene, Shering regarded the vehicles as abandoned and wanted to clear the property for a new tenant.

Removal of the Car by a Stranger

While at a gym, Shering met a stranger who offered to arrange for the cars to be removed at no cost, with the remover recouping expenses from the vehicles. Shering agreed but did not exchange documents or contact details with the stranger, nor was he present when the vehicles were taken.

Seeking Relief Through the Court

After discovering his car was gone, Mutshipisi went to court seeking its return from Shering. However, the vehicle was no longer in Shering’s possession. The court instead ordered Shering to provide details of the person or entity responsible for removing the car. Shering reported that he did not know the identity or contact details of the individual and had shared all information he possessed about the removal with Mutshipisi’s attorneys.

Contempt of Court Application and the Ruling

Dissatisfied with Shering’s response, Mutshipisi pursued a contempt application, seeking to have Shering compelled to comply further and penalised for non-compliance. Acting Judge J Mitchell evaluated Shering’s explanation and found it credible. The court emphasised that to establish contempt, a party must prove that there was a willful and bad faith refusal to comply with an order – which was not the case here.

“The contempt application fails because we don’t hold people in contempt for not doing what they can’t do,” said Judge Mitchell.

The judge found that Shering had provided all known information and that the impossibility of compliance is a valid defence to contempt. Shering’s account was not considered far-fetched or untenable, and the requirement to accept his version in motion proceedings applied in this case.

Arguments and Court Findings

Mutshipisi argued that Shering should not be allowed to rely on the defence of impossibility, as the issue was previously raised. However, the court disagreed, noting that Shering had not been afforded a full opportunity to explain in earlier proceedings. The court underscored that not all non-compliance is contempt; there must be malice or wilfulness, which was not proven in the circumstances.

“Mr Shering doesn’t know who took the car. He has told Mr Mutshipisi all he knows,” the court noted.

Legal Costs and Final Outcome

The court dismissed Mutshipisi’s application and ordered him to pay Shering’s legal costs, including the costs for one counsel on Scale B. While Shering had requested punitive costs, the judge found that such an order was not justified by the circumstances.

Understanding Contempt of Court

Generally, contempt of court is a serious offence, involving willful non-compliance with a court order. However, as explained by the court in this case, impossibility of compliance remains a complete defence. Courts typically require clear evidence of bad faith or intent to disregard judicial authority before finding a party in contempt.

This outcome highlights the importance of credible evidence and the limitations of contempt proceedings, particularly in cases where compliance with a court order is objectively impossible.