Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009)

Smit NO and Others v King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu and Others (10237/2009) [2009] ZAKZPHC 75 (4 December 2009)

The court found that the applicants failed to provide admissible, reliable factual evidence from eyewitnesses to support their allegations of cruelty in the ritual slaughter of the bull at the Ukweshwama festival. The only direct evidence was provided by the respondents, who described the ritual as a symbolic and culturally significant act performed without the cruelty alleged. The court held that the relief sought, although framed as interim, would have a final effect and thus required proof on a balance of probabilities. Applying the Plascon-Evans principle, the court preferred the respondents' version and concluded that there was no legal basis to grant the interdict. The balance of...

Citation
[2009] ZAKZPHC 75
Parties
Applicant: Stephanus Smit, N.O.; Applicant: Alan Duke Rolstone, N.O.; Applicant: Natalie Yael Dembo, N.O.; Applicant: Andrew Charles Shaw, N.O.; Applicant: Carol Booth, N.O.; Applicant: Michele Pickover, N.O.; Applicant: Andrew Christopher Stuart Butler, N.O.; Applicant: Cheryl Hunter, N.O.; Respondent: His Majesty King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu; Respondent: Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Local Government, Housing and Traditional Affairs, Province of Kwazulu-Natal; Respondent: Premier of the Province of Kwazulu-Natal; Respondent: Minister of Police
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 December 2009
Case Number
10237/2009
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Before Final Determination
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Van der Reyden
Legal Topics
Animal Protection Act, Freedom of Religion and Culture, Interim Interdict, Balance of Convenience, Bill of Rights Limitation
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Animal Protection Act Freedom of Religion and Culture Interim Interdict Balance of Convenience 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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Stephanus Smit, N.O.

Applicant

Alan Duke Rolstone, N.O.

Applicant

Natalie Yael Dembo, N.O.

Applicant

Andrew Charles Shaw, N.O.

Applicant

Carol Booth, N.O.

Applicant

Michele Pickover, N.O.

Applicant

Andrew Christopher Stuart Butler, N.O.

Applicant

Cheryl Hunter, N.O.

Applicant

His Majesty King Goodwill Zwelithini Kabhekuzulu

Respondent

Minister of Co-operative Governance and Traditional Affairs

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Local Government, Housing and Traditional Affairs, Province of Kwazulu-Natal

Respondent

Premier of the Province of Kwazulu-Natal

Respondent

Minister of Police

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interim Interdict Before Final Determination

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the ritual slaughter of a bull at the Ukweshwama festival contravenes the Animal Protection Act.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants' rights to freedom of conscience and belief are infringed by the ritual.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' rights to cultural and religious practice are protected under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to provide admissible, reliable factual evidence from eyewitnesses to support their allegations of cruelty in the ritual slaughter of the bull at the Ukweshwama festival. The only direct evidence was provided by the respondents, who described the ritual as a symbolic and culturally significant act performed without the cruelty alleged. The court held that the relief sought, although framed as interim, would have a final effect and thus required proof on a balance of probabilities. Applying the Plascon-Evans principle, the court preferred the respondents' version and concluded that there was no legal basis to grant the interdict. The balance of...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application, including the costs of two counsel.