As such, CEDA was as a result unsuccessful in their interim interdict and contempt of court orders application. The case between Tshwanelang and CEDA stems from accusations made by the whistle-blower that corruption was rife at the money lending institution. Tshwanelang alleged that Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of CEDA, Thabo Thamane and brand ambassador, Sonny Serite, are the most corrupt people. In an attempt to put a stop to the allegations levelled by Tshwanelang, CEDA roped in attorney Njiramanda Mbewe who approached the High Court and sought a temporary court order that implored Tshwanelang to desist from making publications about CEDA, Thamane, and Serite. But Tshwanelang contested the order and proceeded to march alongside aggrieved Batswana to the Ministry of Trade and Entrepreneurship offices to deliver a petition against Thamane and Serite. Following the protest by Tshwanelang and Batswana, CEDA’s attorney filed for contempt of court orders by the respondent in the matter seeking that he be put behind bars for 30 days. However, Justice Michael Leburu, presiding over the matter was not in support of CEDA’s grounds.
Delivering his judgment in open court yesterday, Leburu stated that there was no doubt that the matter was urgent as both parties did not contest its urgency. Regarding the interim interdict, Leburu said it has been overtaken by events as the allegations are now in the public domain and cannot be controlled. “An interim interdict is sought to prevent an infringement of a right or to stop the infringement from continuing, pending the final determination of the party’s rights in the main case. It is not designed to address harm that has already taken place,” Leburu articulated. Furthermore, Justice Leburu further stated that the applicant (CEDA) failed to provide enough grounds why he should grant CEDA the interim interdict as their arguments were not convincing enough. “I find that the applicant has not amply demonstrated how it will suffer irreparable harm from such publication. Mere speculation or conjecture on the harm requirement is not sufficient,” he said. Justice Leburu advised CEDA that there are channels that they could follow to ensure that Tshwanelang does not damage the name and CEDA’s brand. With regards to the contempt of court order applications, Justice Leburu said that CEDA was just being malicious.
