We won’t risk the beef industry – Gov't fires back
Spira Tlhankane | Monday August 17, 2026 06:00
The feedlot giants, who claim they have already lost P27.8 million and exhausted their bank funding, say they are running out of time and money to keep thousands of cattle alive.
Segale and the Minister of Lands and Agriculture, Dr Edwin Dikoloti, have been hauled before the High Court by two feedlot operators in an urgent legal battle. In his answering affidavit, Segale said that the farmers seek to compel the State to act in a manner that would expose the public to the risk of Foot and Mouth (FMD) spread, all for their private economic benefit.
Segale, who is the first respondent in the matter, said the feedlotters’ application is centred on their private commercial interest and that the farmers do not seek to protect any public interest. In their urgent application, the farmers claim that they have already lost P27.8 million and exhausted bank funding. In court papers, the firms have indicated that they are just weeks away from destroying thousands of cattle because they can no longer afford to feed them. In response, Segale said the application cause of action is premised on economic loss for which the applicants can obtain relief in due course.
“The applicants complain about the costs of feeding their cattle, the exhaustion of their banking facilities, the potential insolvency of their business, the loss of income to their suppliers, and the potential retrenchment of their employees. These are all economic considerations. He said the feed lotters have not demonstrated that they face any imminent harm that cannot be compensated by an award of damages.
“The cattle are not dying; they are being maintained. The applicants are not being prevented from doing anything other than slaughtering cattle at the time and in the manner they would prefer. The harm they allege is financial loss, which is quantifiable and capable of being compensated in due course,” he further stated.
Dr Segale also noted that the feedlotters have recourse to legal remedies, including claims for damages against the State, should they succeed in establishing that his decisions were unlawful. He said the applicants are not without remedy; the fact that the latter may suffer economic hardship does not justify the extraordinary relief they seek.
“The law requires that the applicants demonstrate an imminent and irreparable harm that cannot be compensated by an award of damages. The applicants have failed to do so. Their complaint is essentially about potential loss of revenue, and money is not irreparable harm”. He said it is a well-established principle that an interim interdict will not be granted where harm complained of can be adequately compensated by an award of damages. Dr Segale added that the farmers have not established that their alleged losses are irreparable or that they would not be adequately compensated by damages should they ultimately succeed in their application.
“The applicants seek to use the court to compel the Executive to ignore considerations of policy and international obligations in a manner that is impermissible. The applicants seek mandatory interdictory orders that are final in effect. The relief sought in paragraph 2.1 of the Notice of Motion compels the respondents to cause the 4th Respondent to receive and slaughter the applicants’ cattle at full capacity in violation of the policy considerations imposed in the public interest to curb the spread of FMD. Furthermore, the reliefs sought are impermissible in that they are final in nature against the State and seek specific performance against the Government and the Executive,” he further highlighted.
Dr Segale added that the farmers’ application seeks, in effect, an injunction against the State, compelling the latter to act in a manner that is against public interest and violates the principles of separation of power between the judiciary and the executive.
“I aver that in terms of Section 52 of the Constitution the minister has the executive authority to act in the best interest of the public and that the restrictions imposed are such executive determinations. I aver that this Court, with all due respect and deference, is not empowered to set aside such executive decisions,” he noted. Dr Segale said he further averred that such decisions are presumed to have been lawfully made in the best interests of the public, and the applicants have not discharged these legal assumptions.
“The applicants seek to compel the State to undertake a course of action that involves significant operational and logistical consequences. This is not interim relief; it is final relief dressed up as interim relief.
Segale defended his decisions they were lawful and rational, and the applicants have not pointed to any statutory provision that he breached. He said the applicants’ reliance on the principle of legality is misplaced, as he has acted within the four corners of the law. “The applicants have not established a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm. As I have already stated, the harm they allege is economic loss, which is quantifiable and capable of being compensated by damages,” he said.
He said the applicants are not facing imminent destruction of their assets and that the harm is speculative and not imminent. Segale said the balance of convenience does not favour the applicants. “The public interest in preventing the spread of FMD far outweighs the private commercial interests of the applicants. The applicants’ cattle are in Zone 11, where FMD was confirmed. Allowing the applicants to slaughter and export their cattle could potentially spread the disease to other areas and jeopardise the entire beef industry. The balance of convenience favours maintaining the control measures,” he said.