- The High Court in Kimberley found Carel Aron Van der Merwe in contempt for breaching an order that prohibited defamatory and reputation-damaging publications.
- The dispute involved Facebook posts and podcast allegations that Land Bank, its attorneys, and insolvency practitioners were involved in a scheme against farmers.
- Van der Merwe received a 90-day prison sentence, wholly suspended subject to conditions, and was ordered to remove offending publications and display the judgment on the Facebook page for 90 days.
A man who continued publishing allegations about Land Bank, its attorneys, and insolvency practitioners on Facebook despite a court order prohibiting such conduct has been declared in contempt and sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment.
The High Court in Kimberley found that Carel Aron Van der Merwe knowingly breached an existing interdict by continuing to circulate material that could damage the reputation of insolvency attorney Pieter Hendrik Strydom and his legal practice.
Judge MC Mamosebo found that Van der Merwe had failed to provide a credible explanation for his continued non-compliance with the order. The prison sentence was wholly suspended subject to conditions requiring him to remove the offending publications and refrain from further prohibited statements.
Background to the dispute
The contempt application arose from an earlier dispute involving insolvency attorney Strydom and Van der Merwe. On 4 April 2025, Acting Judge LJ Roach granted an interim interdict restraining Van der Merwe and three other respondents from making, posting, or publishing false or defamatory statements, or statements designed to harm the reputations of the applicants and their associated business entities.
The order specifically prohibited such publications on social media, including Facebook, as well as other media platforms. It also required the respondents to remove identified offending publications and submit affidavits confirming compliance.
The interdict remained binding pending the final determination of Part B of the main application and Van der Merwe’s counterapplication. Strydom, who had been admitted as an intervening party in the original proceedings, later approached the court alleging that Van der Merwe had continued publishing and reposting statements despite the order.
He argued that the publications damaged both his personal reputation and that of his firm, Strydom & Bredenkamp Inc.
Facebook posts accused Land Bank lawyers of targeting farmers
The publications relied upon by Strydom included statements made between 8 and 31 August 2026 on the Genoeg is Genoeg Facebook page. They centred on allegations that Land Bank, its attorneys, and insolvency practitioners were involved in a scheme that resulted in farmers being liquidated.
In a post published on 29 August 2026, Van der Merwe accused Land Bank and what he described as its syndicate of continuing to harass farmers, their families, and workers despite allegedly knowing that they were in the wrong. He wrote in Afrikaans, “Landbank het geen reg om voort te gaan om boere, hul gesinne en werkers te bly teister nie. Landbank en hul sindikaat het hul plig versaak om wetende dat hul verkeerd is, so baie skade aan boere te verrig.”
The court also considered a podcast interview conducted on 3 August 2026 in which Van der Merwe specifically identified Strydom and his firm, Strydom & Bredenkamp, as attorneys acting for Land Bank. During the interview, he alleged that insolvency practitioners and the attorneys were acting in concert with Land Bank in a scheme involving the liquidation of farmers.
He questioned how farmers could be liquidated despite having assets worth millions of rands and accused the practitioners of failing to conduct independent investigations into whether Land Bank had valid claims against them. He further alleged that the liquidators and the attorneys were working together with Land Bank rather than fulfilling their legal obligations.
Another publication involved a Maroela Media article which Van der Merwe reposted on the Facebook page on 12 August 2026. It appeared under the heading “DA KRY GROENLIG – Ondersoeke op Landbank se prokureur en likwidateure kom.” Van der Merwe argued that the article did not mention Strydom by name and that he had shared it merely for interest.
However, Judge Mamosebo found that the publications had to be assessed objectively and in context. The podcast interview expressly linked Strydom and his firm to Land Bank, making it reasonably understandable that subsequent references to Land Bank’s attorneys and an alleged syndicate included him.
The judge rejected Van der Merwe’s argument that his firm was not a party to the proceedings, finding that publications concerning the firm could also identify and affect Strydom personally. The court also rejected his attempt to distance himself from the Facebook page because he was not its formal administrator, particularly as he had admitted being a regular contributor who posted and reposted material.
Importantly, the contempt proceedings were not a final determination of whether the allegations against Land Bank, Strydom, or the insolvency practitioners were true. The issue was whether Van der Merwe had continued publishing material prohibited by the existing interdict.
Court finds wilful non-compliance
In considering the contempt application, Judge Mamosebo restated the legal requirements for civil contempt. An applicant must establish beyond reasonable doubt the existence of a court order, service or knowledge of the order, and non-compliance with its terms.
Once these requirements are established, the evidentiary burden shifts to the respondent to demonstrate that the non-compliance was neither wilful nor in bad faith. Van der Merwe admitted that he was present when the original order was granted and knew its contents.
The court found that the publications made after the interdict fell within the prohibitions imposed by the order. Judge Mamosebo further considered Van der Merwe’s attempts to distance himself from the statements and the Facebook page, as well as his argument that he was merely sharing information.
The judge found that he had not provided a credible explanation for continuing to publish and amplify material despite knowing that the order prohibited such conduct. The judgment said that court orders are not advisory. Until set aside by a competent court, they remain binding on those to whom they are addressed.
Judge Mamosebo added that the rule of law would be undermined if litigants were allowed to decide which court orders they would obey and which they would ignore. The judge concluded that Strydom had proved the existence of the order, Van der Merwe’s knowledge of it, and his non-compliance beyond reasonable doubt.
90-day prison sentence suspended
Strydom had sought an order committing Van der Merwe to direct imprisonment for 18 months, or an appropriate sentence determined by the court. However, Judge Mamosebo found that a suspended sentence would adequately address the conduct while allowing the respondent to comply with the existing order.
The judgment said that direct incarceration would at this stage be disproportionate. The court declared Van der Merwe in contempt of paragraphs 5.1 and 5.4 of the interim order granted by Judge Roach on 4 April 2025.
He was sentenced to 90 days’ imprisonment, with the entire sentence suspended for one year or until the final determination of Part B of the main application or the counterapplication, whichever occurs first. The suspension is subject to several conditions.
Van der Merwe must comply with the original interdict, remove all offending posts and publications concerning Strydom, including those on the Genoeg is Genoeg Facebook page, and refrain from publishing further statements prohibited by the order. If he fails to comply, Strydom is authorised to approach the court on the same papers, supplemented if necessary, to seek enforcement of the suspended sentence or other relief.
The court further ordered Van der Merwe to publish an unredacted copy of the judgment on the Genoeg is Genoeg Facebook page within 48 hours of service. The judgment must remain visible for 90 consecutive days, and Van der Merwe was also ordered to pay the costs of the contempt application on Scale C.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
