Johannesburg High Court orders oral evidence after Mbalula fails to secure final interdict

Fikile Mbalula failed to obtain a final interdict against Nkosazana Dlamini‑Zuma after the Johannesburg High Court ordered that oral evidence be heard on allegations she made that money was distributed to delegates to influence the ANC’s 2022 leadership elections.

Judge says affidavits leave a factual dispute

Acting Judge Henno Viljoen made the order on Friday, finding that the central factual dispute could not be resolved on the affidavits before him and that witnesses should be cross‑examined in person. The court confined the oral hearing to the core question of whether money was distributed to delegates at the ANC’s 55th National Conference at Nasrec, Johannesburg, from 16 to 20 December 2022.

What the hearing will decide

The court directed that oral evidence address the specific allegation:

“Oral evidence is to be heard to determine whether at or in connection with the 55th National Conference of the African National Congress held at Nasrec, Johannesburg, from 16 to 20 December 2022, the applicant distributed money to delegates for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the elections held at that conference.”

The judgment does not determine whether Mbalula distributed money or whether Dlamini‑Zuma’s allegation was true. Instead, Viljoen said the competing versions raised a genuine factual dispute requiring oral testimony:

“The affidavits disclose a real, genuine and bona fide dispute of fact upon a material issue, which cannot be satisfactorily determined without the aid of oral evidence.”

Allegations and opposing positions

Dlamini‑Zuma made the accusations during an African Renaissance Podcast interview, alleging that Mbalula distributed money to delegates at a clinic during the ANC’s 55th National Conference and that the funds were used to secure his election as secretary‑general and to help secure Cyril Ramaphosa’s re‑election as ANC president. Mbalula denies the claims.

Mbalula sought declarations that the statements were false, defamatory and unlawful, and asked for a retraction, apology, an order barring repetition and for Dlamini‑Zuma to be held liable for damages. Dlamini‑Zuma opposed the application and maintained the allegations were true and in the public interest.

Witnesses and scope of the hearing

The court identified Mbalula, Dlamini‑Zuma and ANC member Mandla Themba Sibiya as the witnesses currently to be heard. Viljoen noted shortcomings in Dlamini‑Zuma’s version and in Sibiya’s affidavit, including uncertainty about how certain details were known and a lack of particulars in Sibiya’s statement, but said those weaknesses did not make the evidence so implausible that it could be dismissed without testing the witnesses under cross‑examination.

Viljoen observed that Sibiya was an identifiable witness whose evidence could be tested and said:

“This is not a case in which the issues are too undefined and the witnesses too unascertainable for a simple hearing of oral evidence.”

Any additional witness will require the court’s permission. The hearing has been limited to the central allegation rather than referring the entire matter to a full trial or dismissing the application.

Remaining claims and court timetable

The judge refused to grant Mbalula’s damages claim in the current application but said that refusal did not prevent him from bringing a separate damages action. Other relief sought by Mbalula, including the interdict and orders for retraction or apology, remain pending the outcome of the oral evidence.

Viljoen urged a prompt resolution:

“A speedy determination is desirable. Mbalula says that the allegation continues to injure him daily; Dlamini‑Zuma says that she stands by what she said and is willing to have it ventilated in court.”

The court reserved the question of costs, saying:

“Costs should stand over. The question of who has been substantially successful cannot be answered until the issues referred to oral evidence have been decided.”