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

The United Democratic Movement (UDM) and its leader, Mr Bantu Holomisa, wrote letters to the President alleging corruption, conflicts of interest and maladministration involving the Public Investment Corporation (PIC) and the respondent companies, Lebashe and Harith, and their directors. One letter was published on the UDM’s website and Mr Holomisa’s Twitter account and widely publicised through media interviews. The respondents contended that the allegations were false, defamatory and caused reputational and financial harm. They obtained an interim interdict in the High Court restraining the applicants from repeating the allegations and ordering removal of the publications pending a defamation action. The High Court granted leave to appeal. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) struck the appeal from the roll, holding the interim interdict was not appealable. The applicants then sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.

Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal against the SCA order striking the matter from the roll was upheld. The SCA order was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the appeal against the High Court’s interim interdict with costs. The applicants were ordered to pay the respondents’ costs in the Constitutional Court, including the costs of two counsel.

The case clarifies South African law on the appealability of interim orders, confirming that the decisive consideration is the interests of justice rather than rigid formal classifications. It affirms the Constitutional Court’s flexible, justice-based approach under section 16(1)(a) of the Superior Courts Act and provides guidance on the limits of appellate interference with interim interdicts, particularly in defamation matters implicating freedom of expression.