Snowy Owl Properties 284 (Pty) Ltd v Celliers and Another

Snowy Owl Properties 284 (Pty) Ltd, the owner of certain farms in KwaZulu-Natal, and Mziki Shareblock Limited were parties to a reciprocal notarial deed of servitude registered in 1990, allowing traverse of each other’s land for game viewing subject to conditions. Clause 4.2.8 restricted traverse between sunset and sunrise unless prior consent, supervision, and conditions imposed by Snowy Owl were met. After disputes arose, Snowy Owl obtained an interdict from the full bench of the KwaZulu-Natal Division of the High Court on 24 May 2019 restraining Mziki, its members, and persons deriving rights through it from night-time traversal contrary to the servitude. Despite knowledge of the order, Snowy Owl alleged that Mziki members continued traversing the land after sunset without compliance. Mr Norman Celliers, chairperson of Mziki, circulated communications to members discouraging compliance and questioning the correctness of the court order. Snowy Owl launched contempt proceedings, which were dismissed by the High Court. Snowy Owl then appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

The appeal succeeded. The order of the High Court was set aside and replaced with an order declaring the first and second respondents in contempt of the full court order of 24 May 2019. The respondents were directed, within 30 days, to introduce and enforce rules to ensure compliance with the order, to refrain from any conduct resulting in non-compliance, and to pay the costs of the application in the High Court and the appeal on an attorney-and-client scale, jointly and severally.

This case is significant for reaffirming the authority of court orders and clarifying the application of contempt of court principles, particularly the distinction between punitive and coercive contempt remedies. It confirms that, following Matjhabeng Local Municipality v Eskom Holdings Ltd, contempt aimed at securing compliance rather than punishment may be established on a balance of probabilities. The judgment underscores that entities and their office-bearers may be held accountable for failing to ensure compliance by members who derive rights through them.