Summary
The Supreme Court set aside directions made in contempt proceedings requiring old petroleum-outlet cases to be considered under new guidelines. The original judgment required guidelines to be framed and status quo only until then; that interim arrangement expired when the guidelines were framed. Contempt jurisdiction could examine wilful disobedience or a contumacious attempt to circumvent the judgment, but could not enlarge its scope. Any grievance against the guidelines required an appropriate independent remedy.
Issues
- Whether contempt jurisdiction permitted new directions extending the original judgment to old outlet cases.
- Whether the status quo requirement continued after the guidelines were framed.
Held
- The original order was unambiguous: guidelines were to be framed and status quo maintained only in the meantime. Once the guidelines were framed, the interim arrangement expired and the notified guidelines governed the field. (¶¶ 2, 3, 4, 7)
- Contempt jurisdiction cannot expand the judgment alleged to have been violated. It addresses wilful disobedience or a contumacious effort to circumvent the judgment; challenges to the substance of the new guidelines belong in other appropriate proceedings. (¶¶ 5, 7)
Result
Lead appeal allowed and contempt order dated 28 May 2015 set aside. Connected appeals and pending interlocutory applications disposed of in terms of the judgment.