United Democratic Movement and Another v Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (1032/2019) [2021] ZASCA 4; [2021] 2 All SA 90 (SCA) (13 January 2021)

United Democratic Movement and Another v Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Others (1032/2019) [2021] ZASCA 4; [2021] 2 All SA 90 (SCA) (13 January 2021)

The majority held that the interim interdict granted by the High Court was not appealable because it was interim in both form and effect, did not cause irreparable harm, and did not definitively dispose of the parties' rights. The order merely restrained the appellants from repeating certain statements pending trial, but did not permanently silence them, as they could still express their views in Parliament. The delay in setting the matter down for trial was not shown to be beyond the appellants' control, and no evidence of irreparable harm was presented. The interests of justice did not require the appeal to be entertained, as the issues raised could be properly ventilated at trial. The...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 4
Parties
Appellant: United Democratic Movement; Appellant: Bantu Holomisa; Respondent: Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Harith General Partners (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Harith Fund Managers (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Warren Gregory Wheatley; Respondent: Tshepo Duan Mahloele; Respondent: Phillip Jabulani Moleketi
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 January 2021
Case Number
1032/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Interdict Order of Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal struck from the roll; costs awarded against appellants.
Judges
Cachalia, Mbha, Molemela, Makgoka, Sutherland
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Appealability of Orders, Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Political Rights, Irreparable Harm
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Delict Interim Interdict Appealability of Orders Defamation Freedom of Expression Political Rights +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 5 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

United Democratic Movement

Appellant

Bantu Holomisa

Appellant

Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Harith General Partners (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Harith Fund Managers (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Warren Gregory Wheatley

Respondent

Tshepo Duan Mahloele

Respondent

Phillip Jabulani Moleketi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Interim Interdict Order of Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim interdict granted by the High Court is appealable.
  2. 2 Whether the interests of justice require that the appeal be entertained.
  3. 3 Whether the interim order causes irreparable harm to the appellants' constitutional rights.

Ratio Decidendi

The majority held that the interim interdict granted by the High Court was not appealable because it was interim in both form and effect, did not cause irreparable harm, and did not definitively dispose of the parties' rights. The order merely restrained the appellants from repeating certain statements pending trial, but did not permanently silence them, as they could still express their views in Parliament. The delay in setting the matter down for trial was not shown to be beyond the appellants' control, and no evidence of irreparable harm was presented. The interests of justice did not require the appeal to be entertained, as the issues raised could be properly ventilated at trial. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal struck from the roll; costs awarded against appellants.

Orders

  • The appeal is struck from the roll.
  • The appellants, jointly and severally, shall bear the respondents’ costs including the costs of two counsel.