InterdictProvisional orderCoal supply contractsRestraint of tradeSelf-help
Tags
InterdictContractual disputesMiningCoal supply
legislation
Statutes Cited
Banking Act
ai analysis
Case Summary
Key Issues
{"issue_text":"Whether applicant established requirements for final interdict","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Clear right, act of interference, no other remedy"}
{"issue_text":"Whether first respondent's conduct was lawful self-help or unlawful interference","issue_type":"law","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Physical prevention of supply, no court order"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The applicant, a coal processing company, sought confirmation of a provisional order interdicting the first respondent from interfering with its coal supplies from the second respondent. The applicant requires continuous coal supply to prevent damage to its battery plant worth US$40 million. When the first respondent stopped supplying coal, the applicant contracted with the second respondent, but the first respondent then barred the second respondent from supplying coal to the applicant, claiming breach of their mining contract.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases