United Democratic Movement and Another v Lebashe Investment Group (Pty) Ltd and Others

The United Democratic Movement (UDM) and its leader, Bantu Holomisa, sent and published a letter in June 2018 to the President of South Africa alleging unlawful conduct by several business entities and individuals connected to the Public Investment Corporation (PIC). The letter was also published on the UDM’s website and social media platforms. The respondents contended that the allegations were defamatory and sought an interim interdict pending an action for defamation damages. The Gauteng Division of the High Court granted an interim interdict restraining the appellants from repeating the allegations and ordered the removal of the letter from online platforms. Leave to appeal was later granted by the High Court on the basis that the interests of justice warranted appellate consideration, given the alleged impact on constitutional rights. The respondents had by then instituted the main defamation action, which was proceeding separately.

The appeal was struck from the roll, and the appellants were ordered jointly and severally to pay the respondents’ costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case reaffirms the principles governing the appealability of interim interdicts in South African law, emphasising that the constitutional ‘interests of justice’ standard does not render all interim orders appealable. It clarifies that alleged infringements of constitutional rights, including freedom of expression and political rights, do not automatically justify appeals against interim orders. The judgment underscores judicial reluctance to permit piecemeal appeals and reinforces procedural discipline in defamation and constitutional litigation.