2
granted pending an appeal VM is pursuing against the final protection order
underpinning the warrant.
2 In my judgment, I concluded that the definition of “economic abuse” in section
1 of the Domestic Violence Act 116 of 1998 probably does not encompass
VM’s refusal to co-operate with the sale of the parties’ property . I also found,
for that reason, that VM’s non-cooperation probably does not constitute a
breach of the final protection order JM obtained, and that the use of the
warrant to arrest VM on that basis would, at least prima facie, be unlawful. I
nevertheless left the final determination of that question to the court of appeal,
and provided for the interim interdict to lapse if the appeal was not instituted
within the prescribed period. The effect of my order is that the interim interdict
will also lapse if at any time the appeal itself lapses for non-prosecution. I did
not restrain the execution of the warrant for any purpose other than coercing
VM to co-operate with the sale of the property.
3 The interim interdict plainly has no final effect. Interim interdicts with no final
effect are not generally appealable. However, leave to appeal against an
interim interdict with no final effect may still be granted if it is in the interests
of justice to do so. The interests of justice will favour the grant of leave to
appeal against an interim interdict with no final effect only where there is some
exceptional feature of the case that weighs in favour of allowing an appeal
against interim relief while the main case is pursued. Such an occasion is ”a
great rarity – where grave injustice threatens, and where intervention is
necessary to attain justice” (Psychological Society of South Africa v Qwelane
2017 (8) BCLR 1039 (CC), paragraph 40). The question in this case boils
4
For the Applicant: MPT Maluleke
Instructed by Sibuyi Attorneys
For the Respondent: Y Omar
Instructed by Omar Attorneys