The applicant sought a contempt order and immediate possession of a property ordered to be partitioned and sold, alleging the respondent interfered with the sale.
The respondent argued issues with service and hearsay.
The court found sufficient evidence of the respondent's wilful non-compliance but did not formally issue a contempt order.
Instead, it granted the applicant immediate possession of the property, giving the respondent 45 days to vacate, and ordered the respondent not to interfere with the sale or cause damage.
The court also set aside a previous costs order against the respondent but re-ordered costs in favour of the applicant for the current motion.