Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa, A Division of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Fisokuhle Multi Services CC (2023-031755) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1264 (31 October 2023)
The court found that the application was not urgent. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 15-day delay in serving the original court order, which undermined the claim of urgency. The court also noted that the respondents were not interdicted from complaining to any person about the...
Source-derived case information.
- Citation
- [2023] ZAGPJHC 1264
- Parties
- Applicant: Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa, A Division of South Africa (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Fisokuhle Multi Services CC
- Court
- South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
- Jurisdiction
- South Africa
- Case Number
- 2023-031755
- Procedural Posture
- Urgent Application / Application to Hold Respondent in Contempt of Court Order
- Outcome
- Application struck off the roll with costs.
- Judges
- Wright
- Legal Topics
- Contempt of Court, Urgent Interdict, Service of Process
Source-derived case record
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Parties
Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa, A Division of South Africa (Pty) Ltd
Applicant
Fisokuhle Multi Services CC
Respondent
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Hold Respondent in Contempt of Court Order
Legal Issues
- 1 Whether the application to hold the respondents in contempt of the court order is urgent.
- 2 Whether the respondents breached the court order by publishing defamatory material on social media platforms.
- 3 Whether the delay in serving the original order affects the urgency or merits of the contempt application.
Ratio Decidendi
The court found that the application was not urgent. The applicant failed to provide a satisfactory explanation for the 15-day delay in serving the original court order, which undermined the claim of urgency. The court also noted that the respondents were not interdicted from complaining to any person about the applicant, and made no finding on whether the respondents' conduct constituted contempt. As a result, the application was struck off the roll with costs.
Court Disposition
Application struck off the roll with costs.
Orders
- The application is struck off the roll with costs.
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
50 paragraphs
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NO: 2023-031755
REPORTABLE
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES
REVISED
In the matter between:
BARLOWORLD EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA A DIVISION OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And FISOKUHLE MULTI SERVICES CC RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
WRIGHT J
The applicant, Barloworld and the first respondent Close Corporation have or had an agreement under which the first respondent supplied catering to Barloworld. Ms Buthelezi, the second respondent is the moving force behind the CC.
The catering contract was apparently purportedly terminated by Barloworld.
In October 2022, Barloworld launched an urgent application against the CC and Ms Buthelezi. On 26 October 2022, this court granted an order that pending Part B of that application, the CC and Ms Buthelezi are restrained from “posting any information pertaining to the applicant and/or its employees on Facebook, Linkedin or any other social media”
The order was served only on 11 November 2022.
On 10 November 2022, the day before service of the order, a journalist from City Press emailed the applicant with a detailed query
regarding alleged racism by Barloworld.
On 21 November 2022, an article appeared in the City Press referring to the allegations of racism.
Neither Mr Hulley SC, nor Mr Nkosi, for Barloworld, could explain why it took their client 15 calendar days to serve the order. The question arises, why did it take the applicant so long to serve an order that had been sought urgently? It would appear that what motivated the service of the order on 11 November 2022 was the query received by Barloworld on 10 November. The sheriff served the order, if in fact the order was served properly, and I make no finding thereon, on 11 November 2023 at 6:20am and charged an after-hours fee for doing so. It is in my view, unlikely to be co-incidence that this urgent service occurred the morning after the City Press query to Barloworld. But if I am wrong it does not matter. In the absence of an explanation, 15 days is a long time to serve an order obtained urgently. There is no explanation.
In any event, the article that actually was published by City Press on 21 November 2022 was met with no reaction by Barloworld, either to City Press or the present respondents.
Barloworld now seeks urgently that the respondents be held in contempt of the order of 26 October 2022.
The allegation is that Ms Buthelezi recently caused the publication of certain defamatory material on two social media platforms, namely Truth Panther and Not In My Name International.
The defamatory material includes allegations that one or more Barloworld employees referred to black people as “baboons” and ‘’pussies.”
The applicant alleges that Ms Buthelezi has enlisted the assistance of these social media to spread defamation about the applicant in contempt of the court order.
It is to be noted that the respondents were not interdicted against complaining to any person about the applicant, but I make no finding thereon.
Part B of the October 2022 application pending is pending.
In my view, the application is not urgent.
ORDER
1. Struck off with costs.
GC Wright
Judge of the High Court
Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
HEARD : 31 October 2023
DELIVERED : 31 October 2023
APPEARANCES :
APPLICANTS
Adv G Hulley SC
gihulley@law.co.za
082 442 8291
Adv LT Nkosi
nkosi@rivonaiadvocates.co.za
076 513 1271
Instructed by
NSD Inc
francois@nsdinc.co.za / gloria@nsdinc.co.za
073 938 5003
RESPONDENT
Adv K Masupye
Lindy Matlala Attorneys
law@ramaiselamakgale.co.za
012 055 5630 / 065 871 8706