Gas Giants CC and Another v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (13850/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1135; [2023] 12 BLLR 1334 (GP); (2023) 44 ILJ 2800 (GP) (31 August 2023)

Gas Giants CC and Another v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (13850/2022) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1135; [2023] 12 BLLR 1334 (GP); (2023) 44 ILJ 2800 (GP) (31 August 2023)

The court found that the applicants had established the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right to safety and business interests, injury actually committed and reasonably apprehended, and no alternative remedy. The respondents failed to provide evidence to contradict the applicants' averments and did not apply for referral to oral evidence. The EFF, as a political party, could not distance itself from the actions of its members, especially where its regalia was worn and its representatives led the protest. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and the risk of harm was significant given the nature of the applicants' business. The court granted the final interdict,...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 1135
Parties
Applicant: Gas Giants CC; Applicant: Well of Life (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: Khutso Segage; Respondent: Agree Mathebula; Respondent: Matome Solomon Masipa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2023
Case Number
13850/2022
Procedural Posture
Final Interdict Application / Final Determination of Interdict After Opposed Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Final interdict granted against all respondents with costs.
Judges
Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Vicarious Liability, Unlawful Protest, Apprehension of Harm, Remedies, Motion Proceedings
Civil Procedure Delict Final Interdict Vicarious Liability Unlawful Protest Apprehension of Harm Remedies Motion Proceedings

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 17 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gas Giants CC

Applicant

Well of Life (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Khutso Segage

Respondent

Agree Mathebula

Respondent

Matome Solomon Masipa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Interdict Application / Final Determination of Interdict After Opposed Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondents from disrupting their operations.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents can be held vicariously liable for the actions of protestors wearing EFF regalia.
  3. 3 Whether there is a genuine dispute of fact requiring referral to oral evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants had established the requirements for a final interdict: a clear right to safety and business interests, injury actually committed and reasonably apprehended, and no alternative remedy. The respondents failed to provide evidence to contradict the applicants' averments and did not apply for referral to oral evidence. The EFF, as a political party, could not distance itself from the actions of its members, especially where its regalia was worn and its representatives led the protest. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, and the risk of harm was significant given the nature of the applicants' business. The court granted the final interdict,...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted against all respondents with costs.

Orders

  • The final interdict against the first to fourth respondents is granted with immediate effect.
  • The first to fourth respondents (inclusive of all members and representatives of the first respondent) are interdicted and restrained from disrupting or calling for the operations to be disrupted at the applicants' operation at No 8 and 10 Main Reef Road, Boksburg.