THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA ...

21were in all respects to be regarded as its own, and that her bona fides or mala fidesreflected its own state of mind. On that basis there is no ground of distinction betweenthem and the second respondent also committed contempt of court in publishing thearticle.[70] Appellant’s counsel conceded that he was unable to establish a direct connectionbetween Venter and the publication of the article. The cost implications of the involvementof the third respondent in the application and the appeal appear to be negligible.[71] No evidence was placed before the court a quo by either party that would haveenabled it (or us) to decide on an appropriate sanction. In my view, the appeal havingsucceeded, the matter should be referred back to it so that a proper enquiry can beundertaken and an apposite sanction be imposed.[72] In the result the following order is made:1. The appeal succeeds in respect of the first and second respondents.2. The appeal is dismissed in respect of the third respondent.3. The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following:‘(1) The first and second respondents are convicted of contempt of court.