Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd v Ramatlo and Others (69/2001) [2001] ZANWHC 8 (15 February 2001)

Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd v Ramatlo and Others (69/2001) [2001] ZANWHC 8 (15 February 2001)

The Court found that the applicant's business premises were within its jurisdiction and allowed oral evidence to clarify this point. The respondents had themselves challenged jurisdiction in the Transvaal Provincial Division, indicating that orders from that court would not be effective. The Court exercised its discretion, finding that the present proceedings were not vexatious, as the applicant faced ongoing disruptive and unlawful conduct by the respondents, including intimidation and threats to employees, customers, neighbouring businesses, and the public. The applicant established a prima facie case for urgent relief, and considerations of convenience and fairness favoured granting...

Citation
[2001] ZANWHC 8
Parties
Applicant: Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Jacob Ramatlo and 627 Others
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 February 2001
Case Number
69/2001
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict; Rule Nisi Granted
Outcome
Rule nisi granted; interim interdict issued against respondents pending return date.
Judges
M M Leeuw
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Jurisdiction, Lis Alibi Pendens, Unprotected Strike, Prima Facie Case
Labour Law Civil Procedure Urgent Interdict Jurisdiction Lis Alibi Pendens Unprotected Strike Prima Facie Case

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bader Bop (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Jacob Ramatlo and 627 Others

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict; Rule Nisi Granted

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether this Court has jurisdiction to grant the urgent interdict sought by the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the application is vexatious due to pending proceedings in the Transvaal Provincial Division (lis alibi pendens).
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established a prima facie case for urgent relief against the respondents' conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court found that the applicant's business premises were within its jurisdiction and allowed oral evidence to clarify this point. The respondents had themselves challenged jurisdiction in the Transvaal Provincial Division, indicating that orders from that court would not be effective. The Court exercised its discretion, finding that the present proceedings were not vexatious, as the applicant faced ongoing disruptive and unlawful conduct by the respondents, including intimidation and threats to employees, customers, neighbouring businesses, and the public. The applicant established a prima facie case for urgent relief, and considerations of convenience and fairness favoured granting...

Court Disposition

Rule nisi granted; interim interdict issued against respondents pending return date.

Orders

  • The matter is dealt with as urgent and non-compliance with the Rules is condoned.
  • Respondents are prohibited from entering or being present upon the applicant's business premises at 3rd Street, Ga-Rankuwa, North West Province.