Gupta and Others v Malema and Others (9797/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 65 (9 February 2016)

60 Reportability
Constitutional Law

Brief Summary

Interdict — Threats of violence — Applicants sought interdict against respondents to prevent threats and incitement of violence — Respondents accused of making public announcements inciting violence against applicants and their employees — Court granted interdict prohibiting respondents from repeating threats, interfering with journalists, inciting violence, and causing damage to applicants — Respondents also prohibited from intimidating applicants or promoting unlawful removal from South Africa — Order for police protection and provision for urgent further relief if necessary.

About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2016
>>
[2016] ZAGPPHC 65
|

|

Gupta and Others v Malema and Others (9797/16) [2016] ZAGPPHC 65 (9 February 2016)

CASE
NO: 9797/2016
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
DIVISION, PRETORIA
PRETORIA
09 February 2016
BEFORE THE HONOURABLE MR
JUSTICE LOUW JW
In
the matter between:
AJAY
KUMAR
GUPTA

1
ST
APPLICANT
ATUL
KUMAR
GUPTA

2
ND
APPLICANT
RAJESH
KUMAR
GUPTA

3
RD
APPLICANT
CONFIDENT
CONCEPTS (PTY)
LTD

4
TH
APPLICANT
OAKBAY
INVESTMENTS (PTY)
LTD

5
TH
APPLICANT
SAHARA
COMPUTERS  (PTY)
LTD

6
TH
APPLICANT
TNA
MEDIA (PTY)
LTD

7
TH
APPLICANT
INFINITY
MEDIA (PTY)
LTD

8
TH
APPLICANT
VR
LASER SERVICES (PTY)
LTD

9
TH
APPLICANT
SHIVA
URANIUM (PTY)
LTD

10
TH
APPLICANT
WESTDAWN
INVESTMENTS (PTY)
LTD

11
TH
APPLICANT
TEGETA
EXPLORATION AND RESOURCES (PTY) LTD

12
TH
APPLICANT
AND
JULIUS
SELLO
MALEMA

1
ST
RESPONDENT
ECONOMIC
FREEDOM
FIGHTERS

2
ND
RESPONDENT
NTOBENG
NTOBENG

3
RD
RESPONDENT
LIEUTENANT
GENERAL
KHOMOTSO

4
TH
RESPONDENT
JOHANNES
PHAHLANE NO ACTING POLICE
COMMISSIONER
HAVING
read the documents filed of record, heard counsel and considered the
matter:
IT
IS ORDERED THAT:
1.
The
first to third respondents, jointly and severally, be interdicted
from:
1.1
Repeating
previous or further threats of violence against the person or
property of the applicants or any of its employees and in
particular
from making public announcements inciting imminent violence against
the applicants or any of its employees.
1.2
Interfering
with activities of any journalist employed or deployed by the Seventh
and Eight applicants and in particular be interdicted
from any
conduct or making or promoting any remarks preventing any journalist
or investigator employed or deployed by the Seventh
and Eight
applicants from attending any events of relevance to the public in
general including but not limited to any marches,
gatherings or
public meetings of a political nature by any political party
including those of the second respondent.
1.3
Inciting
imminent violence against the applicants or any of its employees in
any way whatsoever by public announcements, media releases
or public
speech.
1.4
Causing
damage, directly or indirectly or promoting damage to be caused to
any of the applicants in person, its property or any
of its
employees.
1.5
Entering
or threatening to incite its followers to enter any of the premises
of the applicants for any other reason than as a bona
fide and/or for
normal commercial purpose and in particular the addresses of the
applicants as they appear in Annexure “A”
hereto being
schedule of business addresses of the applicants.
1.6
Promoting
or maintaining any conduct which could reasonably intimidate any of
the applicants including any conduct or propaganda
causing the
employees of the applicants to fear for their lives, safety or
unreasonably limiting their freedom of movement and
trade.
1.7
Promoting
infringement of the seventh and eight applicants’ right to
freedom of expression and in particular the right to
freedom of press
and media in order for the seventh and eight applicants to maintain
their business of reporting to the general
public with fair comment
and accurate balanced journalism.
1.8
Participating
in any conduct to promote the removal of any of the applicants from
Gauteng or the Republic of South Africa, serve
in accordance with
lawful process.
2.
An
order be granted requesting the fourth respondent to take the
necessary steps in order to protect the interest of the applicants
in
as far as they might unlawfully be infringed upon by criminal
activity resulting from the conduct of the first to third respondents

and in particular any non-compliance of the provisions of the
interdict referred to in prayer 2 above.
3.
An
order be granted that the applicants may approach this Court on an
urgent basis with supplemented papers under the aforesaid
case number
for ancillary or further relief should the respondents fail and/or
refuse to comply with any of the terms of the relief
granted under
this application.
4.
Costs
of this application , including the costs of two counsel.
BY THE COURT
REGISTRAR
CB
Attorney:
VAN DER MERWE
302