IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
( 1) REPORTABLE:
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3) REVISED.
30 ID f )'2DJ.b
I DAT/
In the matter between:
WEHMEYERS ATTORNEYS
and
ECONOMIC FREEDOM FIGHTERS
MOLAHLEGI GLADYS MOGAL
LERATO KGATLE
MMAMATHETE RASINAH MOTAU
JUDGMENT
MBONGWE,J:
CASE NO: 2025-209145
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
.. I
II'
INTRODUCTION
[1] The Applicant approached this Court on urgency in terms of Rule 6(12) seeking
interdictory relief against the Respondents. The application follows an
unexpected approach of the Applicant's business premises in Centurion ,
Tshwane, by members of the local branch of the First Respondent, the Economic
Freedom Fighters political party, and the Second to Fourth R~spondents , the
disgruntled clients of the f.pplicant, to carry out a protest demonstration and
demand payments of alleged balances of the settlement amounts paid to the
Applicant by the Road Accident Fund.
[2] Members of the local branch of the EFF led the demonstration after the branch
had been approached for assistance by the Second, Third and Fourth
Respondents.
[3] The dispute between the Second Respondent and the Applicant commenced
after the publication of a post on the WhatsApp status of the Second Respondent
in March 2025, denigrating and gaslighting the Applicant for allegedly refusing to
pay the alleged full balance of the amount due to her in respect of her RAF claim.
The post also threatened to solicit the assistance of members of the EFF in the
matter.
[4] On 25 March 2025, the Applicant wrote to the Second Respondent warning her
that it will lay criminal charges against her and seek an interdict, if the threats
continued.
[5] On 16 September 2025, the Second Respondent and members of the First
Respondent arrived at the premises of the Applicant and demanded payment to
the Second Respondent. Threats were made to burn down the Applicant's
premises. The deponent to the founding affidavit held diSC!JSSions with a
representative of the EFF, Katlego Chauke ('Katlego '), whom he advised of the
• I
awaited payment of the party and party costs and the amount that will be due to
the Second Respondent.
[6] On 29 October 2025, Katlego wrote a letter to the Applicant , on the letterhead of
the EFF, accusing the Applicant of misconduct and threatening further action,
including approaching the local municipality and seeking permission to hold a
protest demonstration outside the Applicant's premises. In a subsequent letter,
Katlego accused the Applicant of having underpaid the Third and Fourth
Respondents in claims similar to the Second Respondent's. In the same letter,
Katlego stated the 4 Nov.ember 2025 as the date the demonstrations would
occur.
[7] On 31 October 2025, the Applicant wrote letters to the Second, Third and Fourth
Respondents , respectively, enclosing these respondents' claim documents and
advising them that there were no further payments due to them until the party
and party costs have been paid. The respondents were further advised to
approach the Legal Practice Council, if dissatisfied with anything. The Applicant
also threatened to obtain an interdict against the respondents.
[8] True to his word , on 4 November 2025, Katlego Chauke , members of the EFF,
.
the Second to Fourth Respondent and about 20 other people arrived at the
premises of the Applicant fn six motor vehicles. The Applicant activated its panic
button, and security arrived shortly thereafter and prevented whatev er the
respondents had planned to do.
[9] The Applicant launched and served this urgent application on the Respondents ,
including the First Respondent , the following day seeking restraint orders against
the respondents . The First Respondent alleges to have been served at its head
office in Johannesburg at 11 h44 and was required to file its opposition papers by
16h30 on that day.
OPPOSITION
POINT IN LIMINE
[1 0] The First Respondent contends that its citation in these proceedings was a
misjoinder as it has no substantial interest in this matter, and that neither
Katlego Chauke nor the Second to Fourth Respondents had the authority to
bind it. It further contends that the Applicant , despite being aware since 25
March ?025 that the Second Respondent had been brandishing its name (EFF),
had failed to notify it, but chose to communicate with it for the first time by the
service of this application on very short notice. Furthermore, the Applicant has
not demonstrated that it could not resolve its dispute with the Second to Fourth
Respondents without engaging it (EFF). The First Responden t contended that
it had no knowledge of this matter until it was served with the papers. Moreover,
the Applicant failed to respond to an email in which the First respondent had
asked that it be excluded from the case. The First respondent seeks that it be
excluded from any relief, including costs, in this case.
URGENCY
[11] The First Respondent argued that the alleged threats to the Applicant
commenced on 25 March 2025, but the Applicant had never written to it and
demand restraint. To this end, the First respondent contends that this matter is
not urgent, or that urgency was self-created by the Applicant.
Urgency
Requirements For Interim Interdict
[12] The requisites for interim interdictory relief vis-a-vis the First Respondent are:
1. a clear right, or a prima facie right;
2. a reasonable apprehension of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted;
3. the absence of an adequate alternative remedy; and
4. that the balance of convenience favours the granting of relief. 1
[13] No evidence was placed before the Court to show that the First Respondent
authorised, ratified, or endorsed the conduct of its branch. The mere use of
regalia and letterhead does not, without more, establish authority.2
[14] The apprehension of harm, insofar as it relates to the First Respondent, is
speculative. The balance of convenience does not favour binding a party that has
not been shown to be responsible for the impugned conduct.
[15] In response to a question, counsel for the Applicant candidly advised that the
First Respondent was cited ex abudandi cautela to ensure that it is aware of the
proceedings.3 This does not suffice to establish a direct and substantial interest
warranting the joinder of the First Respondent and seek relief and costs against
it.
[16] The First Respondent opposed the application on two grounds:
1. It had not been aware of, nor did it authorise the actions of its branch;
and
2. The interdictory relief is improperly sought against it by the Applicant,
including the costs of the application.
1 Setlogelo v Setlo gelo 1914AD 221 at 227. See also : Webster v Mitche/11948 (1) SA 1186 (WLD); City of
Tshwane Metropolitan Municipality v AfriForum and Another 2016 (9) BCLR 1133 (CC) at para 49; Nationa l
Treasury and Others v Opposition to Urban Tolling Alliance and Others 2012 (6) SA 223 (CC) at para 41.
2 Blower v Van Noorden 1909 TS 890 at 905 (agency and authority). See also: South African Eagle
Insurance Co Ltd v NBS Bank Ltd (294/99) 2001 ZASCA 118.
3 United Watch & Diamond Co (Pty) Ltd v Disa Hotels Ltd 1972 (4) SA 409 (C) at 415. See also: De Villiers
and Others v GJN Trust and Others 2019 (1) SA 120 (SCA); Anglo South Africa Capital v Industrial
Development Corporation of SA 2004 (6) SA 196 (CAC).
AUTHORITY RELIED UPON
[17] The First Respondent relied on the Labour Court decision in Spar Group Ltd v
Economic Freedom Fighters and Another (J 427/16, Labour Court,
Johannesburg). In that matter, the Court held that, absent proof of authorisation
or sanction by the national structure, the mother body could not be interdicted
merely because its members or branches acted under its name and regalia.4
[18] The court stated that such authority is directly apposite as it underscores the
principle that liability for interdictory relief cannot be extended to a mother body
in the absence of evidence that it directed, endorsed , or ratified the impugned
conduct. The court concluded that the Applicant's attempt to bind the mother
body was misconceived.
COSTS
[19] As ·to costs, the general rule is that costs follow the event. It is equally well
established that a party unnecessarily joined should not be burdened with costs
and may even be entitled to costs against the litigant who joined it.5
[20] The Second Respondent was compelled to oppose the application to protect its
interests and clarify its non-involvement. Its opposition was justified. The
Applicant must therefore bear the costs of this respondent.
CONCLUSION
• Economic Freedom Fighters v Brightstone Trading 3 CC tla Gordon Road Spar and Others (J 427 /16,
Labour Court, Johannesburg).
5 Ferreira v Levin NO and Others 1996 (2) SA 621 (CC) at 624.
[21] The Applicant had at least three earlier opportunities to launch this application ,
being 25 March 2025, 16 October 2025 and 29 October 2025, but failed to do so . .
Urgency was, consequently, self- created. The joinder of the First Respondent
was unnecessary and inappropriate. In the circumstances , the application falls
to be dismissed with costs insofar as it relates to the First Respdndent.
ORDER
[22] Consequent to the findings in this judgement I make the following orders,
1. The application is dismissed , to the extent that it relates to the First
Respondent.
2. The Applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the First Respondent.
APPEARENCES
For Applicant:
With
Instructed by:
For the First Respondent:
Instructed by:
Adv F Grabler SC
Adv C Jooste
Wehmeyers Attorneys
Adv S Dlamini
Gardee God rich Attorneys
MPN MBONGWE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION
PRETORIA
Date of Hearing:
Date of Judgement:
13 November 2025
30 January 2026
THIS JUDGEMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES'
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINE ON 30
JANUARY 2026.