2
FMM REID J
Introduction
[1] This is the return date for a rule nisi issued on 8 May 2025, on
which date the rule nisi was extended to 16 May 2025. On 16
May 2025 a directive was issued, in which the parties were
requested to address this Court on the following issues:
1.1. An action plan for cooperation between the applicant and
respondents, if possible.
1.2. The specific period for the interdict to take effect, with the
provision that the applicant may return to court on the
same papers if needed.
1.3. Adherence to safety and health protocols by the
inspectors of the applicant.
[2] Both parties submitted comprehensive arguments on the
above points.
Factual background
[3] On 8 May 2025 the matter was heard as an urgent application,
and the rule nisi order was issued on an urgent basis. The
3
urgency was necessitated by the collapse of the 1st
respondent’s responsibility to appropriately care for the
chickens in their possession and under their control. The two
main issues were the inhumane culling of the breeder birds
(by wringing their necks) and the fact that the chickens were
left without any food, and/or left without specific food as
needed.
[4] The second respondent duly acted on the urgent rule nisi and
funding in the amount of R74,000,000.00 (Seventy Four
Million Rand) was made available to the 1st respondent to
salvage the situation and ensure that the chickens are
properly taken care of and culled in a humane manner.
[5] In the answering affidavit it was admitted by the 1st respondent
(Daybreak) that the company in a state of disrepair due to
financial mismanagement. It was denied that any inhumane
treatment of chickens occurred. Daybreak stated that the
injuries witnessed on the chickens, were probably due to the
chickens pecking at each other’s wounds (which may have
been caused by the chickens’ spurs) which is a natural
reaction of the chicken. They further stated that the financial
4
collapse led to emp loyees not being paid, which in turn, led to
casual workers being employed to take care of the chickens.
There was neither the time nor the money to train the casual
workers in every facet in a poultry production facility. Should
any inhumane culling hav e taken place, it might have been
due to inexperience or lack of training of the casual workers.
This being said, so the argument goes, has now been resolved
with the receipt of the funds and the trained full -time
employees have returned to work. The ava ilability of the funds
also addresses the chicken food shortage.
[6] When the matter was argued on 16 May 2025, the following
relevant factual allegations were common cause:
6.1. The management of the 1st respondent has collapsed and
there was financial mismanag ement of the available
funds.
6.2. The employees went on a strike and people were
employed on a temporary basis.
6.3. Due to time constraints, the temporary employees were
not properly trained in the correct manner of culling the
birds.
5
6.4. There was no food to feed the birds, as there were no
funds available.
[7] There are several factual disputes that are not relevant to the
determination of this application. Due to the irrelevant nature
thereof, I do not give any further consideration thereto.
Analysis
[8] A rule nisi is nothing other than an interim interdict with a return
date for the respondent to prove its rights. See Zulu and
Others v Ethekwini Municipality and Others 2014 (4) SA
590 (CC). On the return date, the rule nisi is either confirmed,
and thus becomes a final interdict, or discharged, in terms of
which the interim interdict is dismissed.
[9] The legal position that a rule nisi operates as an interim
interdict has also been confirmed in the Constitutional Court in
National Director of Public Prosecutions and Anot her v
Mohamed NO and Others 2003 (4) SA 1 (CC) .
[10] The requirements of a final interdict have been established in
our law to be:
6
10.1. A clear right;
10.2. An injury actually committed or reasonably
apprehended; and
10.3. No other satisfactory remedy.
[11] I will brie fly discuss each requirement individually.
[12] Clear right:
12.1. The National Council of the Society for the Prevention of
Cruelty to Animals (“NSPCA”) has a statutory mandate
which is contained in the Animal Protection Act 71 of
1962 (the "Animal Protection Act") and other acts that
protect animals. The Animal Protection Act appointed the
NSPCA as the legislated body responsible for the
implementation and enforcement of animal protection.
The NSPCA has as its overall aim t he protection and
welfare of all animals.
12.2. I am satisfied that the NSPCA has a clear right to the relief
sought, being confirmation of the rule nisi to ensure that
7
the animals at the 1st respondent’s premises are treated
humanely.
[13] An injury actually commi tted or reasonably apprehended:
13.1. Attached to the founding affidavit were numerous
photographs and video footage of the mistreatment of the
chickens. The photos displayed, amongst other
attachments, chickens with their intestines exposed,
severely underfed chickens and heaps of dead chickens.
13.2. The applicant argues that the mistreatment of the
chickens, as displayed in the photographs, may be a real
risk to human health. Hygienic protocols are not followed.
13.3. I am satisfied that the applicant has proven an injury
actually committed or reasonably apprehended.
[14] No other satisfactory remedy :
14.1. In the founding affidavit the applicant sets out steps
taken to resolve the issue. These steps include
discussions with the 1st respondent’s directors, where
8
they were able to get hold of the directors. The applicant
also called on the media to raise awareness of the issues
at the 1st respondent.
14.2. I am satisfied that the applicant has proven that there is
no other satisfactory r emedy available than approaching
the court.
[15] The applicant thus complies with all 3 the requirements for a
final interdict.
Legal position:
[16] In Hotz and Others v University of Cape Town 2017 (2) SA
485 (SCA) the Supreme Court of Appeal found that, on
estab lishment of the above 3 requirements, the court has little
to no discretion to grant the interdict. The relevant part in the
Hotz matter reads as follows:
“[29] The law in regard to the grant of a final interdict is settled. An
applicant for such an orde r must show a clear right; an injury actually
committed or reasonably apprehended; and the absence of
similar protection by any other ordinary remedy. Once the applicant has
established the three requisite elements for the grant of an interdict,
the scope, if any, for refusing relief is limited. There is no general
discretion to refuse relief. That is a logical corollary of the court holding
that the applicant has suffered an injury or has a reasonable
9
apprehension of injury and that there is no similar pr otection against
that injury by way of another ordinary remedy. In those circumstances,
were the court to withhold an interdict, that would deny the injured party
a remedy for their injury, a result inconsistent with the constitutionally
protected right of access to courts for the resolution of disputes, and
potentially infringe the rights of security of the person enjoyed by
students, staff and other persons on the campus.”
[17] Having found that the applicant complies with the
requirements for a final interdi ct, the applicant is entitled to
such.
[18] After careful consideration of merits in this matter, I am
satisfied that the applicant has made out a case for final relief.
Finding
[19] It follows that the rule nisi is to be confirmed.
[20] However, the final interdict will read somewhat different than
the rule nisi . This is done in the interest of justice and to not
over-reach this Court’s powers.
Costs
[21] The general principle is that the successful party is entitled to
be refunded for the costs occurred in the litigation.
10
[22] I find no reason why the general principle should not be
applicable.
[23] The 1st and 2nd respondents are to pay the costs of the
applicant.
Order
I therefore issue the following order:
(i) The rule nisi as issued on 8 May is confirmed, with the
amendments as set out as follows.
(ii) The first respondent is to immediately:
a. cease inhumane culling methods, including but not
limited to the inhumane ringing of the breeder birds'
necks.
b. Feed all birds throughout its operations adequate and
appropriate specific food (such as commercial poultry
pellets for the breeder birds in this matter) until such time
as the birds have been humanely processed.
(iii) Until such time as the applicant is satisfied, alternatively
until s uch time that the parties agree that there is sufficient,
adequate and specie -appropriate nutritional feed at the
11
farms and affiliated facilities of the first respondent, so that
the birds on the farms are not compromised and neglected:
a. The first respondent is ordered to cease the breeding of
and shall not place any Day -Old Chicks on any of its
farms or affiliated facilities and shall make adequate
provision for the hatchlings currently in its care.
b. No hatchlings may be placed at Daybreak Foods
farms/s, affiliated facility or contract grower.
(iv) Should it be found that the first respondent has relapsed
into neglect of the birds at their farms, and should the
applicant inspect the first respondent's farms and should
there once again, be insufficient f eed for the birds - Orders
(i) and (ii) will automatically become operative again.
(v) Subject to the adherence of the respondent's biosecurity
measures, the applicant and its agents and/or
representatives are authorised to access the first
respondent's far ms on production of authorisation by the
applicant and identification, to conduct the
inspections/actions contemplated in this Order.
13
INSTRUCTED BY: GITTINS ATTORNEYS INC
TEL: 010 001 2002
EMAIL: ashley@gittins.co.za
dylan@gittins.co.za
FOR RESPONDENT: ADV TJB BOKABA SC
ADV T POOE
INSTRUCTED BY: GWINA ATTORNEYS
TEL: 011 666 7300
EMAIL:
gwinas@gwinaatorrneys.co.za