Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd v Mahuma and Others (2202/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 96 (23 May 2025)

Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd v Mahuma and Others (2202/2024) [2025] ZANWHC 96 (23 May 2025)

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to conduct its operations without interference. The respondents' actions, including blockading access roads and threatening employees, constituted unlawful interference. The respondents did not dispute their involvement in the protest and blockade, and the evidence showed that the applicant suffered financial loss and threats to safety. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied, as there was a reasonable apprehension of harm and no alternative remedy. The argument that unidentified persons could not be interdicted was rejected, as the first respondent acted on behalf of the second respondent. The Rule Nisi and...

Citation
[2025] ZANWHC 96
Parties
Applicant: Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Mahuma Donald; Respondent: All individual or group of persons who either independently of or in association with the first respondent or any other person gather for the purposes of conducting protest action including the blockading of the applicant’s Rhovan operations or for any other purpose; Respondent: Minister of Police; Respondent: Provincial Commissioner of Police, North West Province; Respondent: Station Commander, Bethanie Police Station; Respondent: Public Order Policing Unit, Klipgat
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 May 2025
Case Number
2202/2024
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date for Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Final Interdict
Outcome
Final interdict granted against the first and second respondents; Rule Nisi and interim orders confirmed; no cost order granted.
Judges
J T Djaje
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Urgent Interdict, Blockading of Premises, Right to Protest, Social and Labour Plan Obligations
Civil Procedure Land and Property Final Interdict Urgent Interdict Blockading of Premises Right to Protest Social and Labour Plan Obligations

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 2 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Glencore Operations SA (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mahuma Donald

Respondent

All individual or group of persons who either independently of or in association with the first respondent or any other person gather for the purposes of conducting protest action including the blockading of the applicant’s Rhovan operations or for any other purpose

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Provincial Commissioner of Police, North West Province

Respondent

Station Commander, Bethanie Police Station

Respondent

Public Order Policing Unit, Klipgat

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date for Confirmation of Rule Nisi and Final Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for a final interdict against the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents' right to protest justifies interference with the applicant's operations.
  3. 3 Whether unidentified persons can be interdicted as part of the second respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to conduct its operations without interference. The respondents' actions, including blockading access roads and threatening employees, constituted unlawful interference. The respondents did not dispute their involvement in the protest and blockade, and the evidence showed that the applicant suffered financial loss and threats to safety. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied, as there was a reasonable apprehension of harm and no alternative remedy. The argument that unidentified persons could not be interdicted was rejected, as the first respondent acted on behalf of the second respondent. The Rule Nisi and...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted against the first and second respondents; Rule Nisi and interim orders confirmed; no cost order granted.

Orders

  • The Rule Nisi issued and the interim orders granted against the First and Second Respondents on 6 May 2024 and extended on 8 August 2024 are confirmed.
  • The First and Second Respondents are interdicted from interfering with or disturbing the Applicant's operations at the Rhovan operations, blockading access roads, preventing or interfering with vehicles using access roads, harming or intimidating any person, and inciting unlawful activities at the Rhovan operations.