Nicola Mawson | Published 1 hour ago
A community unemployment forum leader jailed for contempt after breaching a court order protecting Sibanye-Stillwater’s Marikana mining operations has failed in his bid to overturn the original interdict that ultimately led to his imprisonment.
Tshepo Hope Molaulwa, leader of the Greater Local Communities Unemployment Forum, was jailed for contempt after breaching an urgent court order obtained by Sibanye-Stillwater to prevent disruptions at its Marikana mining operations, located along the platinum-rich Merensky reef.
Molaulwa later returned to court seeking to overturn that original interdict, arguing that he had never been properly served with the application.
But the North West High Court refused to hear the matter urgently, finding that Molaulwa had waited about nine months to challenge the order and had therefore created his own urgency.
Infamous
The Marikana mine has become one of South Africa's most recognisable mining operations following the 2012 tragedy in which police shot dead 34 striking miners during a wage dispute at what was then the Lonmin platinum mine. The events remain one of the defining moments of South Africa's democratic era.
Sibanye-Stillwater acquired Lonmin in 2019, bringing the Marikana operations under its ownership. While the current litigation concerns an interdict protecting mining operations from disruption, the mine remains a focal point for employment and community tensions in the platinum belt.
The original order, granted by Judge President Ronald Hendricks in September 2025, interdicted Molaulwa, the Greater Local Communities Unemployment Forum and anyone acting with them from interfering with Sibanye-Stillwater’s mining and business operations at its Marikana mines, intimidating employees and contractors, damaging property, blocking access roads and otherwise disrupting the company’s operations.
Molaulwa sought to have that order reconsidered, arguing that the original application had not been properly served on him. He contended that documents were sent to the incorrect email address and by WhatsApp only minutes before the hearing, depriving him of an opportunity to oppose the application.
“He goes on to contend that no explanation was provided as to why service could not urgently have been affected by the Sheriff of the Honourable Court,” said the judgement.
In jail
The respondent also argued that his continued imprisonment, from 4 May, made the application urgent because, by the time it was heard in the ordinary course, he would probably have completed serving his 60-day sentence.
Sibanye-Stillwater opposed the application, arguing that Molaulwa had been aware of the interdict long before launching the reconsideration proceedings. The company pointed out that he had knowledge of the order during contempt proceedings.
These proceedings followed his first and second arrests, and throughout subsequent litigation relating to his imprisonment. It argued that any urgency was therefore self-created because he had failed to challenge the original order within a reasonable time.
Acting Judge T Masike agreed. “It has been held that an urgent application must be brought as soon as possible; cogent reasons must be advanced to the court for the delay in bringing the application,” the judge said.
No explanation
The judge found that Molaulwa had failed to explain the lengthy period between the granting of the interdict in September 2025 and the launching of the reconsideration application in June 2026.
“No explanation has been tendered by the second respondent as to what happened between the period of the first arrest, the second arrest and 4 May 2026. In the absence of a cogent explanation for the delay in bringing the application within a reasonable period... I am of the view that the urgency in this application is self-created.”
The court also rejected Molaulwa’s argument that his reconsideration application should automatically be treated as urgent simply because it was brought under a section of the Uniform Rules of Court, which allows parties to ask a court to reconsider urgent orders granted in their absence.
The application was struck from the urgent roll, with Molaulwa ordered to pay Sibanye Stillwater’s costs, including the costs of one counsel on a party-and-party Scale B basis.
IOL BUSINESS
Get your news on the go. Download the latest IOL App for Android and IOS now.
Read the full article at IOL (Independent Online) →
ZA