Interdicts and the Need to Know your Enemy: a growing challenge in South African courts

Threats, intimidation, and violent disruptions by community groups, business forums or disgruntled employees is a common occurrence on South Africa construction and engineering sites and has led to many applications seeking a court interdict to stop the unlawful conduct. Recent court decisions have highlighted the importance of ensuring you are able to clearly identify who is responsible for the conduct before rushing to court against broad, undefined groups.

In Commercial Stevedoring Agricultural and Allied Workers’ Union v Oak Valley Estates, the Constitutional Court considered a situation where a protected strike had escalated into violence and intimidation. The employer sought to interdict a broad group of workers. While the Court accepted that serious misconduct had taken place, it found that the employer had not established a sufficient link between the alleged conduct and the specific individuals it wanted to restrain.

The Court made it clear that being part of a group, such as a group of striking workers, is not enough. An interdict can only be granted where there is evidence connecting the individuals cited to the unlawful acts, or at least a proper basis to infer their involvement.

A similar and more recent example arises from Witbank Taxi Association v Local Taxi Association and Another (Mpumalanga High Court, 2026). In that matter, an urgent interdict was sought following allegations of threats, intimidation and aggressive conduct between two taxi associations over dispute regarding access to facilities at a newly opened mall.

The applicant’s case was framed in broad, general terms, and alleged that “members” of the respondent association made threats and acted aggressively, but failed to identify which individuals were involved, what exactly was said or done, or where and how the incidents occurred.

This created a fundamental difficulty for the court. Interdicts are granted against specific parties, and the court must be satisfied that those parties have engaged in, or are likely to engage in, the conduct complained of. If there is any doubt about who did what, the interdict cannot be granted. Accordingly, even though the matter was urgent and the concerns serious, the application ultimately failed.

These cases highlight that courts are cautious about granting wide-ranging interdicts against groups where only some members may be responsible for wrongdoing. Without clear identification, even serious and ongoing misconduct may not result in the court order being granted.

If you are affected by threats or unlawful conduct and need urgent court protection, you need to ensure you gather clear evidence that identifies the individuals involved, or at least clearly links them to the complained of conduct.

Peter is a lead partner in the construction law arena at Cox Yeats, a leading South African firm established in 1964, with offices in Durban, Johannesburg, and Cape Town. Chantal is a partner who specialises in commercial litigation, construction law, procurement/administrative law, and engineering and infrastructure law.