Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa, A Division of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Fisokuhle Multi Services CC (2023-031755) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1264 (31 October 2023)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg >> 2023 >> [2023] ZAGPJHC 1264 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa, A Division of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Fisokuhle Multi Services CC (2023-031755) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1264 (31 October 2023) Barloworld Equipment Southern Africa, A Division of South Africa (Pty) Ltd v Fisokuhle Multi Services CC (2023-031755) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1264 (31 October 2023) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPJHC/Data/2023_1264.html sino date 31 October 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG CASE NO: 2023-031755 REPORTABLE OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES REVISED In the matter between: BARLOWORLD EQUIPMENT SOUTHERN AFRICA A DIVISION OF SOUTH AFRICA (PTY) LTD APPLICANT And FISOKUHLE MULTI SERVICES CC RESPONDENT JUDGMENT WRIGHT J - The applicant, Barloworld and the first respondent Close Corporation have or had an agreement under which the first respondent supplied catering to Barloworld. Ms Buthelezi, the second respondent is the moving force behind the CC. The applicant, Barloworld and the first respondent Close Corporation have or had an agreement under which the first respondent supplied catering to Barloworld. Ms Buthelezi, the second respondent is the moving force behind the CC. - The catering contract was apparently purportedly terminated by Barloworld. The catering contract was apparently purportedly terminated by Barloworld. - In October 2022, Barloworld launched an urgent application against the CC and Ms Buthelezi. On 26 October 2022, this court granted an order that pending Part B of that application, the CC and Ms Buthelezi are restrained from “posting any information pertaining to the applicant and/or its employees on Facebook, Linkedin or any other social media” In October 2022, Barloworld launched an urgent application against the CC and Ms Buthelezi. On 26 October 2022, this court granted an order that pending Part B of that application, the CC and Ms Buthelezi are restrained from “ posting any information pertaining to the applicant and/or its employees on Facebook, Linkedin or any other social media” - The order was served only on 11 November 2022. The order was served only on 11 November 2022. - On 10 November 2022, the day before service of the order, a journalist from City Press emailed the applicant with a detailed query regarding alleged racism by Barloworld. On 10 November 2022, the day before service of the order, a journalist from City Press emailed the applicant with a detailed query regarding alleged racism by Barloworld. - On 21 November 2022, an article appeared in the City Press referring to the allegations of racism. On 21 November 2022, an article appeared in the City Press referring to the allegations of racism. - Neither Mr Hulley SC, nor Mr Nkosi, for Barloworld, could explain why it took their client 15 calendar days to serve the order. The question arises, why did it take the applicant so long to serve an order that had been sought urgently? It would appear that what motivated the service of the order on 11 November 2022 was the query received by Barloworld on 10 November. The sheriff served the order, if in fact the order was served properly, and I make no finding thereon, on 11 November 2023 at 6:20am and charged an after-hours fee for doing so. It is in my view, unlikely to be co-incidence that this urgent service occurred the morning after the City Press query to Barloworld. But if I am wrong it does not matter. In the absence of an explanation, 15 days is a long time to serve an order obtained urgently. There is no explanation. Neither Mr Hulley SC, nor Mr Nkosi, for Barloworld, could explain why it took their client 15 calendar days to serve the order. The question arises, why did it take the applicant so long to serve an order that had been sought urgently? It would appear that what motivated the service of the order on 11 November 2022 was the query received by Barloworld on 10 November. The sheriff served the order, if in fact the order was served properly, and I make no finding thereon, on 11 November 2023 at 6:20am and charged an after-hours fee for doing so. It is in my view, unlikely to be co-incidence that this urgent service occurred the morning after the City Press query to Barloworld. But if I am wrong it does not matter. In the absence of an explanation, 15 days is a long time to serve an order obtained urgently. There is no explanation. - In any event, the article that actually was published by City Press on 21 November 2022 was met with no reaction by Barloworld, either to City Press or the present respondents. In any event, the article that actually was published by City Press on 21 November 2022 was met with no reaction by Barloworld, either to City Press or the present respondents. - Barloworld now seeks urgently that the respondents be held in contempt of the order of 26 October 2022. Barloworld now seeks urgently that the respondents be held in contempt of the order of 26 October 2022. - The allegation is that Ms Buthelezi recently caused the publication of certain defamatory material on two social media platforms, namely Truth Panther and Not In My Name International. The allegation is that Ms Buthelezi recently caused the publication of certain defamatory material on two social media platforms, namely Truth Panther and Not In My Name International. - The defamatory material includes allegations that one or more Barloworld employees referred to black people as “baboons” and ‘’pussies.” The defamatory material includes allegations that one or more Barloworld employees referred to black people as “baboons” and ‘’pussies.” - The applicant alleges that Ms Buthelezi has enlisted the assistance of these social media to spread defamation about the applicant in contempt of the court order. The applicant alleges that Ms Buthelezi has enlisted the assistance of these social media to spread defamation about the applicant in contempt of the court order. - It is to be noted that the respondents were not interdicted against complaining to any person about the applicant, but I make no finding thereon. It is to be noted that the respondents were not interdicted against complaining to any person about the applicant, but I make no finding thereon. - Part B of the October 2022 application pending is pending. Part B of the October 2022 application pending is pending. - In my view, the application is not urgent. In my view, the application is not urgent. ORDER 1. Struck off with costs. GC Wright Judge of the High Court Gauteng Division, Johannesburg HEARD  :  31 October 2023 DELIVERED :  31 October 2023 APPEARANCES  : APPLICANTS Adv G Hulley SC gihulley@law.co.za 082 442 8291 Adv LT Nkosi nkosi@rivonaiadvocates.co.za 076 513 1271 Instructed by NSD Inc francois@nsdinc.co.za / gloria@nsdinc.co.za 073 938 5003 RESPONDENT Adv K Masupye Instructed by Lindy Matlala Attorneys law@ramaiselamakgale.co.za 012 055 5630 / 065 871 8706 sino noindex make_database footer start