Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town (730/2016) [2016] ZASCA 159; [2016] 4 All SA 723 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 485 (SCA) (20 October 2016)

Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town (730/2016) [2016] ZASCA 159; [2016] 4 All SA 723 (SCA); 2017 (2) SA 485 (SCA) (20 October 2016)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the university had established the requisites for a final interdict: its rights were infringed by the protest actions, the appellants were active participants in unlawful conduct, and there was a reasonable apprehension of recurrence in the absence of any undertaking to desist. The defence of necessity was rejected as it was not properly raised or substantiated, and the constitutional dispensation provides legal avenues for grievances. Alternative remedies such as disciplinary proceedings, criminal charges, or mediation were found inadequate to afford similar protection. The court found the original interdict too broad, as it unduly restricted the...

Citation
[2016] ZASCA 159
Parties
Appellant: Alexandria Gabriella Hotz; Appellant: Masixole Mlandu; Appellant: Chumani Maxwele; Appellant: Slovo Magida; Appellant: Zola Shokane; Respondent: University of Cape Town
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 October 2016
Case Number
730/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal dismissed except to the extent that the terms of the interdict were narrowed; costs ordered jointly and severally against the appellants.
Judges
Navsa, Bosielo, Theron, Wallis, Mathopo
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Right to Protest, Freedom of Expression, Malicious Injury to Property, Necessity Defence, Bill of Rights Limitation
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Final Interdict Right to Protest Freedom of Expression Malicious Injury to Property Necessity Defence Bill of Rights Limitation

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 6 Authorities cited 26 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Alexandria Gabriella Hotz

Appellant

Masixole Mlandu

Appellant

Chumani Maxwele

Appellant

Slovo Magida

Appellant

Zola Shokane

Appellant

University of Cape Town

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the requisites for a final interdict were satisfied against the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants' conduct during the protest was unlawful and justified the interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of necessity was available to the appellants.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the university had established the requisites for a final interdict: its rights were infringed by the protest actions, the appellants were active participants in unlawful conduct, and there was a reasonable apprehension of recurrence in the absence of any undertaking to desist. The defence of necessity was rejected as it was not properly raised or substantiated, and the constitutional dispensation provides legal avenues for grievances. Alternative remedies such as disciplinary proceedings, criminal charges, or mediation were found inadequate to afford similar protection. The court found the original interdict too broad, as it unduly restricted the...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed except to the extent that the terms of the interdict were narrowed; costs ordered jointly and severally against the appellants.

Orders

  • The ninth, eleventh, twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth respondents are interdicted and restrained from erecting any unauthorised structures on the applicant’s premises.
  • The respondents are interdicted and restrained from destroying, damaging or defacing any of the applicant’s premises.