Steenkamp J in Orthocraft (Pty) t/a Advanced Hair Studios v AM (J1636/15) [2016] ZALCJHB 12 (14 January 2016) at paras [26] to [28].

“It is clear beyond a reasonable doubt that both of the respondents have breached the court order of 23 September 2015.  They did so wilfully and are in contempt of court.  The question remains what sanction to impose.

The primary aim of contempt proceedings is to ensure compliance and not to punish. [Fakie NO v CCII at para 7].  Ms AM has given an undertaking not to breach the order again.  But the fact that both respondents have already breached the order cannot be swept under the carpet.  In my view, in order to make sure that they do not do so again, a suspended sentence will be appropriate.

Ms Jean-Pierre, for the applicant, asked that Ms AM be directly imprisoned until 30 April 2016, the date that the restraint of trade enforced by the court order of Brassey AJ expires.  That is too drastic a step.  Firstly, I consider a period of imprisonment of 30 days a sufficient deterrent; and secondly, a suspended sentence operative until that date, i.e. 30 April 2016, should have the desired effect to ensure strict compliance”.