The dispute arose from urgent proceedings in the High Court, Mpumalanga Division, where the first and second respondents obtained an Anton Piller order and an interim interdict against the applicants concerning the management of the Mawewe Communal Property Association (MCPA). The respondents alleged corruption, fraud, theft, and maladministration by the applicants, who were members of the MCPA’s executive committee, and sought to preserve evidence and remove control of the MCPA from the alleged wrongdoers. The High Court granted the orders in camera, temporarily dissolved the committee, and appointed administrators to investigate. The applicants unsuccessfully sought reconsideration, leave to appeal in the High Court, and leave to appeal in the Supreme Court of Appeal. They then approached the Constitutional Court, alleging, among other things, that the High Court judge acted under improper influence of the Judge President and that their constitutional property rights were infringed.
Leave to appeal was refused. The applicants were ordered to pay the costs of the first and second respondents in the Constitutional Court on an attorney and client (punitive) scale.
The case is significant for reaffirming the Constitutional Court’s approach to punitive costs, particularly where litigants make unfounded and scurrilous allegations against members of the judiciary. It clarifies the limits of the Biowatch principle, emphasising that it does not protect litigants engaged in frivolous or vexatious litigation or disputes between private parties dressed up as constitutional claims. The judgment underscores the Court’s role in protecting judicial integrity and deterring abuse of court processes.