Key Points
- The Western Cape High Court announced a ban which prevents possible protests at Gugulethu Mall because it identified threats as unlawful actions.
- According to the South African Constitution the Court emphasized how vital peace and lawfulness remain as conditions for permitted protests.
- The local residents brought up employment and business opportunities issues at Gugulethu mall which caused this dispute.
The Western Cape High Court implemented an interdict to stop any potential protests or disruptions at Gugulethu Mall because local residents and business groups did not demonstrate how their actions would be safe.
The development of Gugulethu Mall has been disputed for multiple years since residents and business groups insisted they should get priority access to employment and business opportunities.
Disputes over employment and business opportunities
The community groups in 2023 presented Vukile Property Fund Ltd which owns Gugulethu Mall with two demands that required eighty percent mall employees to be Gugulethu residents and seasonal job openings exclusively for youth from the community.
The community organizations proposed two requirements to the business owners: first they wanted owner consultation during retail space availability and second they wanted education contribution through mall proceeds.
The group of representatives issued an August 2024 threat to close down the mall unless their demands received proper response.
The High court halts protests and analyzed threats to close businesses
The court found that these threatening actions amount to illegal threats after hearing the letter sent by the party, so High court halts protests.
Judge Philippa van Zyl cited Section 17 of the South African Constitution which protects the right to protest while she highlighted that this constitutional right carries specific constitutional requirements.
Every protest requires peaceful behavior along with lawful and unarmed conduct. The court classified the letter’s threatening suggestion to interrupt operations along with destructive behavior as unlawful thus granting an order to stop any interruptions.
The respondents failed to give any promises that the upcoming protests would follow legal guidelines. The court determined their repeated violations of mall rights proved how actions exceeded a single incident.
