Gupta and Others v Malema and Others (9797/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 64 (11 February 2016)

Gupta and Others v Malema and Others (9797/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 64 (11 February 2016)

The court found that the respondents' statements, as understood by a reasonable person, constituted threats of violence against the applicants. The language used, such as 'physically drive the ZUPTAS out of our province by any means possible,' and the warning that 'no one can guarantee their safety,' could not reasonably be interpreted as mere political campaigning or lawful protest. The applicants' constitutional right not to be threatened with violence was infringed, and they had a reasonable apprehension of harm. The respondents failed to retract their statements and offered no alternative remedy. The court held that the requirements for an interdict were satisfied and granted the...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPPHC 64
Parties
Applicant: Ajay Kumar Gupta; Applicant: Atul Kumar Gupta; Applicant: Rajesch Kumar Gupta; Applicant: Oakbay Investments (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: TNA Media (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Infinity Media (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Julius Sello Malema; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters; Respondent: Ntobeng Ntobeng; Respondent: Lieutenant General Khomotso
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2016
Case Number
9797/16
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict
Outcome
Interdict granted in favour of the applicants.
Judges
J W Louw
Legal Topics
Threats of Violence, Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Reasonable Apprehension of Harm
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Threats of Violence Interdict Freedom of Expression Reasonable Apprehension of Harm

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

Parties

Ajay Kumar Gupta

Applicant

Atul Kumar Gupta

Applicant

Rajesch Kumar Gupta

Applicant

Oakbay Investments (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Sahara Computers (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

TNA Media (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Infinity Media (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Julius Sello Malema

Respondent

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Ntobeng Ntobeng

Respondent

Lieutenant General Khomotso

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the respondents constituted threats of violence against the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants had a reasonable apprehension of harm justifying an interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' conduct infringed the applicants' constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents' statements, as understood by a reasonable person, constituted threats of violence against the applicants. The language used, such as 'physically drive the ZUPTAS out of our province by any means possible,' and the warning that 'no one can guarantee their safety,' could not reasonably be interpreted as mere political campaigning or lawful protest. The applicants' constitutional right not to be threatened with violence was infringed, and they had a reasonable apprehension of harm. The respondents failed to retract their statements and offered no alternative remedy. The court held that the requirements for an interdict were satisfied and granted the...

Court Disposition

Interdict granted in favour of the applicants.

Orders

  • The respondents are interdicted from making or publishing any statements threatening violence against the applicants, their businesses, or employees.
  • The acting commissioner of police is requested to take necessary steps to protect the interests of the applicants against unlawful conduct resulting from non-compliance with the interdict.