Pitsiladi NO and Others v Ngqisha and Others (1504/2018) [2018] ZAECPEHC 41 (7 August 2018)

Pitsiladi NO and Others v Ngqisha and Others (1504/2018) [2018] ZAECPEHC 41 (7 August 2018)

The court found that the respondents, acting as members of the Economic Freedom Fighters, threatened and carried out disruptive actions at the applicants' business premises, including occupying the store, blocking aisles, and intimidating staff and customers. These actions constituted unlawful interference with the applicants' right to conduct business. The respondents were not entitled to demand meetings regarding labour or consumer issues, as these are regulated by statutory frameworks. The applicants established a clear right, its infringement, a reasonable apprehension of further harm, and the absence of a suitable alternative remedy. The respondents failed to provide any undertaking...

Citation
[2018] ZAECPEHC 41
Parties
Applicant: Nicholas Peter Pitsiladi N.O.; Applicant: Aristides Peter Pitsiladi N.O.; Applicant: Constantine Peter Pitsiladi N.O.; Applicant: Maria Coutsourides N.O.; Respondent: Khanya Ngqisha; Respondent: Pepsi James; Respondent: Economic Freedom Fighters
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 August 2018
Case Number
1504/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Interim Relief
Outcome
Final interdict granted in favour of the applicants; respondents ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
G G Goosen
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Unlawful Interference With Business, Labour Relations Act, Consumer Protection Act, Protest Action, Injunctive Relief
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Labour Law Final Interdict Unlawful Interference With Business Labour Relations Act Consumer Protection Act Protest Action +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nicholas Peter Pitsiladi N.O.

Applicant

Aristides Peter Pitsiladi N.O.

Applicant

Constantine Peter Pitsiladi N.O.

Applicant

Maria Coutsourides N.O.

Applicant

Khanya Ngqisha

Respondent

Pepsi James

Respondent

Economic Freedom Fighters

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Following Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents unlawfully interfered with the applicants' business premises.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondents from organising or inciting unlawful activities.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' conduct constituted intimidation and disruption of business.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents, acting as members of the Economic Freedom Fighters, threatened and carried out disruptive actions at the applicants' business premises, including occupying the store, blocking aisles, and intimidating staff and customers. These actions constituted unlawful interference with the applicants' right to conduct business. The respondents were not entitled to demand meetings regarding labour or consumer issues, as these are regulated by statutory frameworks. The applicants established a clear right, its infringement, a reasonable apprehension of further harm, and the absence of a suitable alternative remedy. The respondents failed to provide any undertaking...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted in favour of the applicants; respondents ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondents are interdicted and restrained from organising, facilitating, promoting, encouraging, or inciting any unlawful activities on any of the applicants' business premises trading as Prestons.
  • The respondents are prohibited from interfering with access to or egress from the applicants' premises, inciting or participating in protest demonstrations within 100 meters of the premises, entering the premises except for bona fide purchases, disrupting or obstructing business activities, intimidating staff or...