llPage
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
(WESTERN CAPE DIVISION, CAPE TOWN)
JUDGMENT
In the matter between:
TR EVOR STUURMAN
TREVOR STUURMAN FOUNDATION
(Registration Number : 2019/388152/08)
And
K ELEBOGILE TSHOLOFOLO SY LIA KODISANG
DA H LIA MAUBANE
FHULUFEL O MOBAD I
BONGIWE PHAKHATI
Not Reportable
Case Nu m ber: 2025-066625
First Applicant
Second Applicant
First Respondent
Seco nd Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Re spondent
FIONA DAVHANA
SIMPHIWE JULIA THABEDE
Coram:
Heard on:
De livered on:
Summary:
DASILVA $ALIE, J
5 August 2025
4 November 2025
2f Page
Fifth Respondent
Sixth Respondent
Leave to Appeal - Interdict (Part A) - Relief granted to preserve the status quo pending
final determination of Part B - Meaning and effect of the term "pending" examined -
Held: the Order of 21 May 2025 was expressly interim in nature, provisional and
conditional upon a later judicial determination of ownership, authorship and entitlement
- To read the word "pending" otherwise would render it tautologous and invert the
order's plain purpose - The relief served only as a holding measure; the final
adjudication remains for Part B - no reasonable prospects that another Court would
read a different conclusion - Order not of final effect - Piecemeal appeals
discouraged. Leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
ORDER
"(i) The late delivery of the application for leave to appeal is condoned.
(ii) The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs."
3 IPage
JUDGMENT
DASI LVA SALIE, J:
Introduction
[1] This is an application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order
delivered extempore on 21 May 2025, arising from the application heard on the urgent
roll of the same date. The urgency stemmed from an art exhibition which was then
underway at THK Gallery, De Waterkant, Cape Town in terms of which Mr. Trevor
Stuurman, a photographer, creative director and artist had on exhibition under the title:
"Your Beauty is our Concern" artwork accessible to the public from 24 April 2025 until
30 May 2025. The exhibition was a thematic presentation of hairstyles as the central
artistic motif with the socio-economic political framing of hairstylists' narratives.
[2] The respondents (applicants a quo) collaborated as the Wozasisi Collective
"("WC") in curating and publicly exhibiting a body of work around April/May 2023 titled:
"Your Beauty is My Concern" in Johannesburg. The exhibition explored themes
dealing with the lived realities of socio-economic struggles of female hairstylists
operating in downtown Johannesburg. The WC submitted that it was formed by the
respondents as an independent artistic initiative aimed at amplifying the narratives of
marginalised communities through social engaged creative expression, in respect of
which they had garnered critical acclaim, comme rcial success w ith artwork sales,
acclaim on national media platforms of SABC, Newsroom Afrika and Metro FM as well
as licensing enquiries. They also launched a book of the same title portraying the
realities and socio-econom ic struggles of women stylists who have businesses in
down town Johannesburg. WC is a female led organization which was established in
2012 to increase visibility and opportunities for black women artists.
41 Page
[3] The respondents sought relief from this Court to interdict the exhibition and
further relief, couched as Part A and B. They took issue that the applicants' work
bears an unmistakeable resemblance to their original work and that no credit or
authorisation was afforded to them given that they developed a significant reputation
in connection w ith their original work and theme: "Your Beauty is My Concern".
(4) In terms of the order, relief was granted pending the final determination of Part
B of the proceedings. The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:
"(i) The respondents are interdicted and restrained from disseminating,
exhibiting and proceeding with the presentation of the exhibition titled:
"Your Beauty is My Concern" including "Your Beauty is Our Concern",
pending the final determination of the relief sought in Part B of this
application, including removal of any posts on social media and other
pubic platforms of the label, title and or get-up as "Your Beauty is Our
Concern" within 24 (twenty four) hours of the granting of this Order;
(ii) The respondents are interdicted and restrained from selling, transferring
or otherwise disposing of any artworks associated with the exhibition
under the theme "Your Beauty is My Concern" including "Your Beauty is
Our Concern" pending the final determination of the relief sought in Part
B of this application.
(iii) "
[5) The applicants contend that the Court erred in its findings on the existence of a
clear right, the application of the law of passing-off, and the distinction between
copyright and common-law intellectual-property protection.
SI Page
Grounds of Appeal
[6] The main grounds advanced are that-
(a) the Court erred in holding that the respondents had established a
protectable right or goodwill in their concept: "Your Beauty is My Concern".
(b) the Court conflated the principles of passing-off and copyright.
(c) the Order granted confers a monopoly over a concept or idea.
(d) the Court placed undue reliance on social context; and
(e) the Order was final in effect and therefore amounted to a finding of a
clear right.
Overview:
[7] Having considered the detailed grounds for leave to appeal and submissions
made by counsel on behalf of the parties, I am not persuaded that the requirements
of section 17(1 )(a)(i) or (ii) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013 are satisfied for the
reasons which follow.
[8] The order was expressly interim in purpose. It served to preserve the status
quo and prevent the further dissemination of the impugned exhibition pending the
outcome of Part B.
6jPage
[9] Counsel for the applicants argued that, because the order effectively brought
the exhibition to an end, the Court had granted a final interdict and thereby made a
definitive finding of a clear right. That submission misconceives the nature of the relief.
Although the order had a final practical effect in restraining the exhibition, it was interim
in law and in purpose, pending the adjudication of Part B. Paragraphs (i) and (ii) of
the order expressly state that the dissemination, presentation and selling of artworks
under the theme "Your Beauty is My Concern", including the exhibition itself, are
interdicted pending the final determination of the relief sought in Part B. The judgment
did not finally determine the underlying rights or questions of respondent's authorship
and ownership. The reference to a "clear right" signified that the respondents had
demonstrated sufficient strength to justify temporary protection, not that their
entitlement had been conclusively established.
[1 O] Had the exhibition not been halted, the respondents' association with the
creative concept would have been diluted, and the goodwill attaching to their work
eroded. The preservation until a Court can make a final determination was necessary,
for had it not been granted, the continued display and sale would have rendered the
ultimate adjudication nebulous and academic. The order sought to be appealed
against is only a holding measure, with final rights remaining open for judicial
determination. The judgment did not finally determine the underlying rights or
questions of authorship.
[11] Whilst paragraph 16 of the main judgment referred to the respondents having
established a "clear right", however, read in the full context, that expression was not
intended as a final or absolute finding of right. The relief granted remained explicitly
interim and subject to the final adjudication of Part B. I was satisfied that the
respondents have established a sufficient association with the movement underlying
respondents have established a sufficient association with the movement underlying
the thematic theme of the exhibition, worthy of protection pending final determination.
[12] The Court's use of the term "clear right" did not elevate the respondents' case
to that of a final declaration of the underlying substantive rights, but simply
71 Page
acknowledged that on the papers before me , viewed holistically, the respondents had
established a right deserving of temporary safeguarding. The right referred to the
respondents' demonstrated association and goodwill in the thematic concept: "Your
Beauty is My Concern", sufficient to warrant its interim protection.
[13] The applicants also misconstrued the finding that the respondents had
demonstrated public association, authorship, and reputational harm. Those findings
were factual and evidential from the facts placed before me. In my view , it was
sufficient to justify temporary relief and we re not intended to determine the merits
finally.
[14] The criticism that the Court relied on irrelevant socio-cultural context is
unfounded. The context was considered only to illuminate the nature of the creative
concept and the potential harm to reputation and authorship. Recognising that
background did not displace legal principle, nor final determination on the matter. It
contextualised the dispute within its proper social and artistic framework.
What is the purpose of the word "pending" in the 21 May 2025 Order?
[15] The use of the word "pending" in the order underscores that the relief granted
in Part A was provisional and conditional upon a final determination of the rights in
Part B. That further determination by this Court in due course wou ld necessarily
include the issues of authorship, ownership and entitlement from which any claims to
royalties or derivative relief arise. To read it otherwise would render the word
"pending" as tautologous in circumstances where I had included it because the status
quo was being preserved until a further determination. To construe my finding on the
underlying substantive rights as final would disregard the qua lifying word 'p ending',
which by its very nature negates finality.
Sj Page
[16] Counsel for the applicant submitted that in light of the fact that Part B is confined
in the Notice of Motion to the quantification of royalties only, the Order which I granted
must be read to accept that I had made a final determination of ownership.
Consequently, it would not be open for the Court in due course to consider this issue,
as it would be res judicata. This subm:ssion is misplaced, and it reads incorrectly into
my Order. It misconstrues the nature of the Order and relief granted by me.
[17] It remains for this Court, in due course, to determine a final adjudication of the
substantive rights and relief sought implicitly forming part of Part B. The inclusion of
the word "pending" was purposeful, for if the order had been intended as a final
determination of the underlying ownership rights, the word would not have appeared
at all. Its reference and inclusion convey that the relief was provisional as a holding
measure designed to preserve the position until the substantive issues are finally
adjudicated. The applicant is at liberty to set the matter down for such determination
should there be any absence or undue delay in its prosecution by the respondents.
Conclusion
[18] The applicants have not shown any reasonable prospect that another Court
would reach a different conclusion, nor does the matter raise a discrete question of
law or public importance warranting further consideration. In any event, the order
sought to be appealed against is not of final effect and does not dispose of the issues
between the parties. The appeal therefore does not lie as of right and falls outside the
ambit of section 16(1 )(a) of the Superior Courts Act. It is trite that appeals should not
be entertained in a piecemeal fashion, particularly where the proceedings remain
extant and the substantive rights of the parties are yet to be finally determined.
9IPage
[19] The application for leave to appeal accordingly does not meet the threshold set
by section 17(1) of the Superior Courts Act.
Order
[20] Wherefore I make the following order:
"(i) The late delivery of the application for leave to appeal is condoned.
(ii) The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs." ___ _
Appearances
For Applicants:
Instructed by:
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
WESTERN CAPE
Adv . C Bester and Adv. T Sompa
England Slabbert Attorneys Inc.
For Respondents: Adv. N Hammond
Instructed by: Sithi & Thabela Attorneys
-