SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document
in compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NUMBER: 6111/2023
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED : YES/NO
DATE: 26 JUNE 2025
SIGNATURE:
In the matter between:
BOULDER PROCESSING (PTY) LTD 1ST APPLICANT
DE GROOTEBOOM MINERALS (PTY) LTD 2ND APPLICANT
BOULDER CAPITAL (PTY) LTD 3RD APPLICANT
-and-
NGWAABE STEELBRIDGE BUSINESS FORUM 1ST RESPONDENT
JACK DIKOTOPE 2ND RESPONDENT
LLOYD KGOLE 3RD RESPONDENT
THE MEMBERS AND SUPPORERS OF THE
FIRST RESPONDENT AND SUPPORTERS OF
THE SECOND AND THIRD RESPONDENTS 4TH RESPONDENT
TUBATSE DIESEL SUPPLY (PTY) LTD 5TH RESPONDENT
Delivered : 25 June 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties’ legal representatives by e -mail. The date and time
for hand down of the judgment is deemed to be 25 June 2025 at
10:00 am.
Date heard : 13 November 2024
Coram : Bresler AJ
REVISED JUDGMENT
BRESLER AJ:
Introduction:
[1] The Applicants apply for final interdictory relief. The relief is opposed by the
Fifth Respondent. The application was initially enrolled on the urgent court on the 6th
of July 2023 and an interim interdict and ancillary relief was granted with the ret urn
date being the 9th of November 2023. On this day, the rule nisi was extended to the
opposed roll of 13 November 2024.
[2] The First to Fifth Respondents collectively delivered a Notice of Intention to
Oppose. Only the Fifth Respondent delivered an Opposing affidavit setting out its
defence to the proceedings.
[3] This matter came before Court on the 13th of November 2024. Counsel for the
Fifth Respondent applied for a postponement of the matter on the premise that the
Fifth Respondent is not in a position to continue with the matter as counsel for the
Fifth Respondent, Adv. RR Maisela was unavailable due to receiving medical
treatment. A medical certificate was presented in court.
[4] This Court inter alia indicated that all the papers were duly filed, that the
Applicants are ready to proceed, and the postponement was consequently refused.
Reasons for the refusal of the postponement were duly delivered ex tempore in court.
[5] This Court then directed that the matter will be dealt with on the pap ers only
and without oral argument and that, for purposes of a just determination of the matter
both parties will have an equal opportunity to provide the Court with Heads of
Argument / Written Arguments. The Applicants were obliged to deliver such further
Heads of Argument / Written Arguments on or before the 29th of November 2024,
and the Fifth Respondent had an opportunity to deliver same on or before the 13th of
December 2024. Judgment was accordingly reserved.
[6] What follows is judgment on the meri ts of the matter. For purposes of
determination of the merits, this Court had due regard to all papers and documents
filed on record, the Applicants’ Heads of Argument, the Fifth Respondent’s Heads of
Argument and the Applicant’s further written submission s delivered in respect of the
Fifth Respondent’s Heads of Argument.
Factual synopsis:
[7] The Applicants essentially claim the following relief:
7.1 The Applicants seeks to interdict and restrain the Respondents from
continuing with their illegal and unlawful actions and to furthermore restrain
from threatening, intimidating, threatening to assault and harm the Applicants,
its employees, customers and the general public.
6.2 The Applicants also seek to interdict and restrain the Respondents from
interfering in any way whatsoever with the business operations of the
Applicants and to desist from venturing closer that 500 metres of the
Applicants’ b usiness premises situated at Portion 9 (a portion of portion 1) of
the Farm De Grooteboom 373 KT, Steelpoort, Limpopo Province and Erf 1 […]
Vanadium Street, Steelpoort, Industrial Park, Steelpoort, Limpopo Provinces
(the ‘Premises’).
[8] The Applicants c onducts the business of a chrome mine and a chrome wash
plant at the Premises. The chrome is transported daily from the mine to the wash
plant. Since approximately 2021, the Applicants have conducted business with the
First Respondent. This was done larg ely under duress as the members of the First
Respondent inter alia blocked access to the Applicants’ Premises and committed
other threatening or unlawful acts.
[9] The First Respondent’s purpose is to create and / or negotiate business
opportunities for its members. The members are predominantly local businesses.
The First Respondent forces businesses, like the Applicants, to conduct business
with its members or face potentially violent and damaging consequences.
[10] Since approximately 2021, the Applic ants have purchased amongst others,
diesel to the value of R22,408,597.23 from the Fifth Respondent, being one of the
suppliers preferred by the First Respondent.
[11] The Applicants started experiencing difficulties with the quality of the diesel
deliver ed by the Fifth Respondent. On or about the 22nd of June 2023, the Fifth
Respondent was informed that ‘dirty diesel’ (paraffin blended) and requested to
provide constructive proposals on how to resolve the matter. On the 29th of June
2023 and whilst the Ap plicants were still awaiting constructive proposals from the
Fifth Respondent, the First and Second Respondents, and a group of community
members blocked entry to the Applicant’s mining premises and demanded payment
within an hour failing which all busines s operations of the Applicant will be barred
from proceeding.
[12] The full outstanding amount was then paid to the Fifth Respondent under
duress.
[13] Hereafter, the Applicants approached a different supplier for diesel.
[14] On the 5th of July 2023, t he Applicants received an email from the Second
Respondent demanding that the Applicants continue to purchase diesel from the
Fifth Respondent, failing which they will conduct themselves in an unlawful manner.
The Fifth Respondent and some of its represent atives were copied in this
communication.
[15] The Applicants also stated that there was an exchange of communication
between the Fifth Respondent and the First to Third Respondents, irrefutable
showing the affiliation between the respective parties.
[16] A written demand was delivered by the App licants’ attorneys to the
Respondents, including the Fifth Respondent, requiring them to provide a written
undertaking before the 6th of July 2023 at 12:00 that they will cease and desist with
their unlawful actions, failing which the Applicants will appro ach the Court for relief.
[17] No response was received (including from the Fifth Respondent), resulting in
the urgent application being launched and enrolled for hearing on the 6th of July 2023
at 14:00. As stated herein before, an interim order was duly granted.
[18] The Fifth Respondent’s opposition entails the following key aspects:
18.1 The Fifth Respondent is not affiliated with the First Respondent and
denies engaging in any unlawful conduct. According to the Fifth Respondent
this constitutes a misjoinder;
18.2 The Applicants’ failure to pay for the outstanding fuel led to the
unlawful conduct.
18.3 The Applicants failed to satisfy the requirements for interdictory relief.
[19] From the onset it must be noted that the Fifth Respondent does not appear to
be directly involved in the threats and other unlawful conduct. No pertinent
information is available as to the conduct of the Fifth Respondent, or its employees,
specifically. It appears that the case against the Fifth Respondent rests solel y on the
fact that the conduct of the remaining Respondents is aimed at benefitting the Fifth
Respondent. It is not alleged that they acted upon direct instructions from the Fifth
Respondent, nor are any of the Fifth Respondents’ employees and / or Board o f
Directors implicated in any way directly.
Issues that require determination:
[20] The remaining Respondents did not oppose the relief, and final relief should
unquestionably be granted against them. This Court is called upon to determine if
the inte rim order should be made final as against the Fifth Respondent specifically.
The Applicable Legal Principles:
[21] As stated before, the Applicants apply for final interdictory relief. It is trite law
that motion proceedings for final relief are appropriate only where there is no
material dispute of fact evident from the papers before court.
[22] In National D irector of Public Prosecutions v Zuma1 the Supreme Court of
Appeal stated:
‘[26] Motion proceedings, unless concerned with interim relief, are all about
the resolution of legal issues based on common cause facts. Unless the
circumstances are special, the y cannot be used to resolve factual issues
because they are not designed to determine probabilities.’
[23] In the well -known decision of Plascon -Evans Paints Ltd v Van Riebeeck
Paints (Pty) Ltd2 it was stated:
‘[The] affidavits reveal certain disputes of fact. The appellant nevertheless
sought a final interdict together with ancillary relief, on the papers and without
resort to oral evidence. In such a case the general rule was stated by Van
1 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA) at [26]
2 1984 (3) SA 623 (A) at 634E – 635D
Wyk J (with whom De Villiers JP and Rosenow J concurred) in St ellenbosch
Farmers’ Winery Ltd v Stellenvale Winery (Pty) Ltd 1957 (4) SA 234 (C) at
235E – G, to be:
“ ... where there is a dispute as to the facts a final interdict should only be
granted in notice of motion proceedings if the fact in the applicant’s a ffidavits
justify such an order ... Where it is clear that facts, though not formally
admitted, cannot be denied, they must be regarded as admitted.”
[24] A failure to heed this basi c proposition can (and generally should) result in the
application being refused when the disputes of fact on material issues were
foreseeable.3
[25] This Court is of the view that there is a dispute of fact as to the involvement of
the Fifth Respondent in the conduct complained of. Although the Applicants submit
that the Fifth Respondent did not distance themselves from the conduct complained
of, the explanation tendered by the Fifth Respondent is not untenable. The
Applicants provided the Fifth Respondent with one day to respond to their demand –
the Fifth Respondent required a reasonable opportunity to consult with their attorney
prior to respond ing to the said demand.
[26] The Fifth Respondent did in fact, at the first available opportunity, being the
6th of July 2023 and after the order was granted, by means of the letter addressed by
its attorneys to Applicants’ attorneys unequivocally addresse d its denial of
involvement in the unlawful actions complained about.
[27] The submissions made in respect of their involvement is quite circumstantial
and evidently placed in dispute. This Court is therefore of the view that motion
proceedings are not t he appropriate forum to address a factual dispute of this nature.
[28] One must also bear in mind that unlike an interim interdict that does not
involve a final determination of rights of the parties, a final interdict affects a final
3 BR Southwood, Essential Judicial Reasoning , Lexis Nexis on p 23
determination of rights.4 It is trite law that to succeed with final interdictory relief, the
Applicant must show5:
28.1 A clear right;
28.2 An act of interference; and
28.3 No other remedy available.
[29] As to a clear right, the existence of the right is a matter of substantive law.
Whether the right is clearly established is a matter of evidence. To establish a clear
right, the Applicant must prove on a balance of probabilities the right which he seeks
to protect.6
[30] This Court has no difficulty to find that the Applicants have a clear right
susceptible to interdictory relief. The difficulty however lies with the second
requirement, being an ‘act of interference’. In the case of Bok v The Tran svaal Gold
Exploration and Land Co7 where Kotze CJ correctly described the requirement as
thus:
‘...act actually done by the Company (respondent) showing an interference
with the exercise of any alleged rights possessed by the Government
(applicant); nor does it appear that there exists any well -grounded
apprehension that acts of this kind will be committed by the respondent’
[31] It is trite law that the person against whom the interdict is sough must be the
person responsible, either as principal or as agent, for the wrong committed or
threatened. There must be no doubt as t o precisely who is responsible. If there is
such doubt, the interdict will be refused8.
4 Fourie v Olivier en ‘n ander 1971 (3) SA 274 (T)
5 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221 at 227
6 Nienaber v Stucky 1946 AD 1049 at 1053 – 4
7 (1883) 1 SAR 75 at 76
8 Prinsloo v Ned Hervormde or Gereformeerde Ch urch (1890) 3 SAR 220
[32] In Goldsmid v The SA Amalgamated Jewish Press Ltd9 it was pertinently
stated that a Court will not interdict a Company from committing illegal acts on the
mere ground that a servant of the Company has committed such acts, where the
company has not only not authorised those acts but has expressly forbidden them.
Applying this reasoning to the current matter, there is simply insufficient evidence
tying the Fifth Re spondent directly to the actions complained about.
[33] On that basis, final interdictory relief against the Fifth Respondent should fail.
[34] As to the remaining Respondents, it is unquestionable that interdictory relief
should be granted against them . The Applicants have a clear right, their interference
in the said right stands undisputed and there is not other remedy available to the
Applicants that would yield the same, or a similar result.
Costs:
[35] The Fifth Respondent is substantially successful in its opposition. There is no
reason to deprive the Fifth Respondent of its costs.
[36] As to the filing of the further answering affidavit (the ‘Answering affidavit to the
Applicant’s Replying affid avit’), the service and filing thereof was no authorised or
permitted by the court as contemplated in Uniform Rule 6(5)(e). This document is
thus deemed pro non scripto and no costs can be recovered in respect thereof.
[37] Having regard to the complexit y of the matter and the importance of the case
to the parties, costs to counsel are warranted on Scale B.
[38] The Applicants pray for costs against the remaining Respondents. The
Applicants are substantially successful against these Respondents.
Order:
9 1929 AD 441
[39] In the result the following order is made:
39.1 The interim order granted on the 6th of July 2023 is hereby made
final against the First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents;
39.2 The First, Second, Third and Fourth Respondents, jointly and
severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, is ordered to pay the
Applicants’ costs on a party and party scale, including costs to counsel
on Scale B.
39.3 The interim order granted on the 6th of July 2023 is hereby
discharged as against the Fift h Respondent;
39.4 The First, Second and Third Applicant, jointly and severally, the
one paying the other to be absolved, is ordered to pay the costs of the
Fifth Respondent on a party and party scale, including costs to counsel
on Scale B. Such costs shall exclude all costs pertaining to the Fifth
Respondent’s Answering affidavit to the Replying Affidavit.
M BRESLER AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES:
FOR THE APPLICANT : Adv J Stroebel
INSTRUCTED BY : Vermaak Beeslaar Attorneys
Pretoria
vermaak@vbprokureurs.co.za
carla@vbprokureurs.co.za
FOR THE FIFTH RESPONDENT : Adv. RR Maisela
INSTRUCTED BY : Mafolo Attorneys
Northam
derflamafolo@gmail.com
derfla@mafoloattorneys.co.za