Boulder Processing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ngwaabe Steelbridge Business Forum and Others (6111/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 126 (25 June 2025)

Boulder Processing (Pty) Ltd and Others v Ngwaabe Steelbridge Business Forum and Others (6111/2023) [2025] ZALMPPHC 126 (25 June 2025)

The court found that the Applicants established a clear right and that the remaining Respondents had interfered with that right, justifying final interdictory relief against them. However, as regards the Fifth Respondent, the evidence did not sufficiently establish direct involvement or responsibility for the unlawful conduct. The Fifth Respondent’s denial was not untenable, and the factual dispute regarding its involvement could not be resolved on the papers in motion proceedings. Consequently, the requirements for a final interdict were not met against the Fifth Respondent, and the interim order was discharged as against it. Costs were awarded to the substantially successful parties on...

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 126
Parties
Applicant: Boulder Processing (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: De Grooteboom Minerals (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Boulder Capital (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Ngwaabe Steelbridge Business Forum; Respondent: Jack Dikotope; Respondent: Lloyd Kgole; Respondent: The Members and Supporters of the First Respondent and Supporters of the Second and Third Respondents; Respondent: Tubatse Diesel Supply (Pty) Ltd
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2025
Case Number
6111/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Interim Relief and Opposed Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Final interdict granted against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents; discharged as against the Fifth Respondent. Costs awarded as specified.
Judges
Bresler
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Urgent Interdict, Joinder and Misjoinder, Motion Proceedings, Party and Party Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Final Interdict Urgent Interdict Joinder and Misjoinder Motion Proceedings Party and Party Costs

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 5 Authorities cited 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boulder Processing (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

De Grooteboom Minerals (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Boulder Capital (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Ngwaabe Steelbridge Business Forum

Respondent

Jack Dikotope

Respondent

Lloyd Kgole

Respondent

The Members and Supporters of the First Respondent and Supporters of the Second and Third Respondents

Respondent

Tubatse Diesel Supply (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Interim Relief and Opposed Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Applicants are entitled to final interdictory relief against the Respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the Fifth Respondent is sufficiently implicated to justify final interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether the requirements for a final interdict have been satisfied against each Respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Applicants established a clear right and that the remaining Respondents had interfered with that right, justifying final interdictory relief against them. However, as regards the Fifth Respondent, the evidence did not sufficiently establish direct involvement or responsibility for the unlawful conduct. The Fifth Respondent’s denial was not untenable, and the factual dispute regarding its involvement could not be resolved on the papers in motion proceedings. Consequently, the requirements for a final interdict were not met against the Fifth Respondent, and the interim order was discharged as against it. Costs were awarded to the substantially successful parties on...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents; discharged as against the Fifth Respondent. Costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The interim order granted on 6 July 2023 is made final against the First, Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents.
  • The First, Second, Third, and Fourth Respondents, jointly and severally, are ordered to pay the Applicants’ costs on a party and party scale, including costs to counsel on Scale B.