its brands (including Poetry, Old Khaki and K-Way), and its executive chairperson Philip Joseph Krawitz to the State of Israel, the conflict/war in Gaza, “genocide,” funding of the Israeli military, or the killing of children.
The application seeks leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Appeal. The original applicants were Cape Union Mart and Krawitz; the respondents included named individuals (Maghmuda/Magmuda Ockards, Muhammad Shafiq Gamiet, Mohamed Zaid/Zain Jeenah, Sherazaad Rahima Sylvester, and Sayed Ridhwaan Mohamed), unidentified protesters, and the PSC (Cape Town). The Centre for Applied Legal Studies (CALS) participated as amicus curiae.
Background to the dispute
Protests outside Cape Union Mart stores began around November 2023, after the escalation of the Israel-Hamas conflict and related events in Gaza. The PSC and supporters organised regular gatherings (continuing for roughly 19 months) calling for a consumer boycott. They targeted the retailer primarily because of Krawitz’s personal leadership roles in Jewish communal/philanthropic organisations such as Keren Hayesod (United Israel Appeal), which they characterised as linked to Israel, its military, or settler activities. Posters, chants, and social media posts included statements such as “They fund genocide,” “Phillip Krawitz Genocide Funder,” references to killing children/babies, “K-Way Killers Way,” and associations with Israel or the conflict. Some materials involved images of Krawitz (and sometimes his wife), manipulated photos, or other imagery.
Cape Union Mart and Krawitz approached the court for a final interdict, arguing the claims were false, defamatory, and damaging to reputation and dignity, and that some protest conduct involved harassment, intimidation of customers/staff, or non-compliance with the Regulation of Gatherings Act. They emphasised that the company is a South African retailer with no donations or funding directed outside Southern Africa, that Krawitz is not a shareholder, and that his personal ties relate to Jewish religious/communal identity rather than funding military actions or genocide. An interim settlement order had been in place from around August 2025, but protests continued. The full-bench hearing took place in mid-June 2026 before Justices J Cloete, C N Nziweni and R Barendse.
The High Court judgment and order
In a judgment penned by Cloete J (with the other judges concurring), the court granted a final interdict. Key findings included that the impugned statements were objectively defamatory; the respondents failed to establish a factual basis for truth or protected comment defences and relied heavily on hearsay (internet articles/reports that the court treated as inadmissible or insufficient); and the applicants had clear rights, faced ongoing injury, and lacked an adequate alternative remedy. The court stressed it was not adjudicating the broader Israel-Gaza conflict, limiting criticism of Israel, or banning boycotts/protests in principle—it was addressing specific defamatory claims and unlawful conduct “under the guise of freedom of expression.”
The order interdicts and restrains the respondents from:
- Claiming that Cape Union Mart or its brands are associated with the State of Israel “in any way.”
- Claiming that Cape Union Mart or its brands are funding “genocide” or any military conflict in Gaza.
- Claiming that Krawitz is “funding genocide,” the Israeli army, or the conflict in Gaza.
- Claiming that the applicants are killing children or are complicit in the killing of children.
- Publishing defamatory statements to the effect that the applicants support a genocide in Gaza or have “killer(s) ways.”
- Preventing customer access to Cape Union Mart stores.
- Failing to comply with the Regulation of Gatherings Act during any protest action at the stores/premises.
Each party was ordered to pay its own costs. The court noted that Cape Union Mart had initially sought somewhat overbroad relief and that certain of Krawitz’s public comments (including a sarcastic interview remark about funding) had “unhelpfully stoked” the dispute.
Protests and the boycott itself remain lawful if conducted within the interdict’s bounds and the Gatherings Act. Criticism of Israel or its policies is unaffected.
Grounds of the leave-to-appeal application
The PSC and individuals argue the restrictions are overbroad and unjustifiably limit freedom of expression and protest. Central points include:
- The prohibition on claims of association with Israel “in any way” is too wide and could catch true or non-defamatory statements (e.g., discussion of Krawitz’s public roles in organisations like Keren Hayesod as relevant context for the boycott rationale, without necessarily proving the company itself funds unlawful acts).
- Similar concerns about restrictions on “funding,” “complicity,” or “support” language, which could cover future statements regardless of factual context; they say any interdict should be narrowly confined to specific proved or reasonably apprehended unlawful statements.
- Insufficient attribution: not every respondent was shown to have published, authorised, or adopted every poster/statement; mere organisation of or attendance at a protest does not automatically make individuals responsible for all content displayed.
- Challenges to the protest-conduct restrictions and the court’s approach to defences (arguing the court should have considered potentially available trial evidence, including records controlled by the applicants, and that institutional publications were relevant to context even if they did not prove funding).
- An alleged failure to determine an abuse-of-process objection.
Cape Union Mart has indicated it stands by the judgment, describing the action as a last resort against false claims of funding genocide or killing babies, harassment/intimidation, and Gatherings Act issues. It reiterated that the company donates only within South Africa and has never funded entities outside the country.
Broader context and implications
This case sits at the intersection of South African constitutional rights to freedom of expression, protest, dignity, and reputation, in the charged atmosphere of local solidarity activism over the Gaza conflict. Courts have repeatedly emphasised that political speech on international issues is protected, but that protection does not extend to false factual claims that defame individuals or companies, nor to unlawful protest tactics. The judgment treats internet-sourced material cautiously as a basis for asserting “facts,” and distinguishes personal/religious affiliations from corporate funding or complicity in specific alleged crimes.
Reactions have been polarised: supporters of the ruling (including some Jewish communal voices) view it as a necessary check on defamatory campaigns that blurred corporate and personal identity and risked intimidation; critics and the PSC frame the interdict as an overly broad constraint on legitimate boycott advocacy and public discussion of leaders’ associations. The amicus role of CALS focused on distinguishing political speech from unprotected categories and the limits of protest rights.
As of the latest reports (around 25 September 2026), the leave-to-appeal application is pending before the High Court. If granted, the matter would proceed to the Supreme Court of Appeal for fuller consideration of the scope of the interdict, evidentiary standards in interlocutory/final interdict proceedings involving alleged defamation, and the balance between expression/protest rights and protection against reputational harm. The outcome could influence how future boycott or solidarity campaigns involving corporate or personal targeting are conducted and litigated in South Africa. Boycotts and peaceful, lawful protests against Cape Union Mart remain possible, but specific prohibited claims and access-blocking tactics are currently restrained pending any successful appeal.
