Johann Möller court case: High court judge not impressed
Judge Henk Roelofse warned the advocate representing Möller against further misconduct.
Johann Möller, who was arrested earlier this week during his life partner, Sonell Joubert’s bail application in Tonga, has evaded a three-month jail period by paying an R80 000 fine.
While Joubert faces a premeditated murder charge for the death of Jurgens Nel, both Joubert and Möller have criminal records, having been found in contempt of court. Möller, who desperately sought to stay out of jail, turned to an advocate who left Mpumalanga High Court Judge Henk Roelofse unimpressed during Wednesday, February 12’s high court proceedings.
The court proceedings were set down for 08:30, but neither Adv Hennie van Rensburg, on behalf of Möller, nor Möller himself were present. Roelofse commenced nevertheless and started proceedings by placing on record what had transpired on Monday, February 10, when Möller was arrested in contempt of court.
Roelofse said he had been on his way to his chambers when Van Rensburg made an unsolicited appearance and asked him about the possibility of suspending or changing the order of Möller’s arrest and jail time. The judge said this conduct was highly irregular and unethical. “Mr Van Rensburg would need to provide reasons why I should not report him to the LPC [Legal Practice Council].”
Roelofse said he told Van Rensburg that he had to file an application, and that he, Roelofse, was not on the urgent roll for the day, in any case. Van Rensburg excused himself and left.
Roelofse further said the registrar had informed him that Möller had paid the fine of R80 000 and was released.
With the most recent debacle in the ongoing legal battle between Shofeeds, Möller and Joubert having been dealt with, Roelofse moved on to the case before him. As an introduction, he referred to various court decisions and orders that were made during the litigation between these three parties.
Lowvelder has reported extensively on the Shofeeds matter. During May and October last year, more than one judge ordered Möller and Joubert to remove the well-known Onderberg elephant, Tswale, from the farm they all reside on. In addition, orders were made against them to refrain from excavating, removing or selling gravel on the farm, to stop the cutting, collecting or selling of firewood from the property, and to stop the organisation of motor vehicle rallies or similar events on Lowhills. They did not comply and were found to be in contempt of court. In November, their multiple attempts to secure an appeal and have the findings reversed led to them being classified as vexatious litigants. This meant they would henceforth need the court’s permission prior to launching further litigation.
This did not dissuade them from launching yet another appeal in December. They asked the court to suspend the warrants of arrests hanging over their heads until 30 January. They would have to challenge the orders against them by that date. In failing to do so, the orders prior to December 19 would stand.
Before this week’s events, Shofeeds asked the court to reinstate the pre-December 19 position – something that, due to Monday’s events, was no longer necessary.
Adv JH Kruger, on behalf of Shofeeds, asked the court for a short recess to consult with his clients on the possible withdrawal of the appeal.
At that moment, the courtroom doors leading to the judges’ rooms opened and Van Rensburg showed his face. Upon returning from the recess, Roelofse sternly addressed Van Rensburg on his conduct in chambers on Monday. Roelofse noted that Van Rensburg’s practice notes indicate his status as an SC (Senior Council) is a prestigious title for top advocates, and asked him to provide documentary proof of this title.
Roelofse offered Van Rensburg the opportunity to address the court and to offer an explanation why he should not report him to the LPC. Van Rensburg told Roelofse he merely wanted to get his client from prison as soon as possible and that he knew the judge had knowledge on the matter.
Van Rensburg said the moment he turned and walked away, he knew he ‘might have walked on a thin line’ and apologised for his conduct. “I should have known better.”
Kruger addressed the court and said Shofeeds was happy with the decision to withdraw. Roelofse ruled that the order of December 19 had lapsed and that the applicants had to pay the respondents’ cost.
Kruger expressed their satisfaction with the outcome of the proceedings and confirmed that they would proceed with an eviction order against Möller and Joubert. He said meeting the relevant requirements could take some time.
Shortly after the judgment, Möller sent WhatsApp messages to various recipients, including Lowvelder, stating: “We won in high court with cost against them !!!!!!!!!!….it took Adv Hennie the total of 25 min to roll up 7 legal eagles and an advocate in HIGH COURT. We are publishing todays court proceedings ( and documents now that it is officially in the public domain for acces and verification by all ) world wide.” (sic)
