- The South Gauteng High Court heard an urgent application brought by Jub Jub's mother, Ithuteng 'Mama Jackie' Mpambani.
- Mpambani accused Amanda Du-Pont and Masechaba Khumalo of defamation - and argued that the matter should be heard on an urgent basis.
- The court ruled there was no merit for the matter to be heard on an urgent basis.
The South Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg ruled that the defamation case brought by Jub Jub's mother, Ithuteng "Mama Jackie" Mpambani, against media personalities Amanda Du-Pont and Masechaba Khumalo should not be heard on an urgent basis.
Mpambani approached the court, on an urgent basis on Tuesday, and argued the allegations levelled against her by Du-Pont and Khumalo were defamatory and put her life in danger.
"On 5 December 2021, a few days after the first respondent (Du-Pont) posted her video on both Facebook and Instagram, I attended the Southgate Mall in Southgate, Johannesburg South," Mpambani said in her court papers.
"Just as I was about to enter the shops, a stranger shouted at me that I was a witch. Very quickly, a crowd gathered, shouting at me that I bewitched the first respondent, that my son did not go to jail because I was a witch, and became progressively more aggressive to the point that I had to run back to my car and drive away," she added.
In her ruling, Judge Shanaaz Mia found there was no urgency for the matter to be heard - and that Mpambani would be able to get redress once the matter was heard by a normal court and investigated by police.
The judge further said granting urgency would be tantamount to a gag order.
Du-Pont had posted an emotional 17-minute video on her Instagram page.
Earlier this month, she accused Jub Jub - real name, Molemo Maarohanye - of raping her for two years while they were in a relationship.
She said she had not been able to speak out about the alleged rape at the time because she had been afraid of his mother, who she alleged used muti.
In her papers, Mpambani asked the court to interdict Du-Pont from making any allegations on social media, to other people or media platforms that she uses muti or witchcraft, and that Du-Pont was raped in her house.
She argued that, following Du-Pont's video, her life was in danger.
After Du-Pont's video, Khumalo alleged on social media that she was raped in Mpambani's home.
Mpambani wanted the court to order Khumalo to remove the post.
In a virtual hearing attended by over 300 people, including Du-Pont and Khumalo, Mpambani's attorney, Vicky Olivier, said they were asking the court that Du-Pont remove parts of the video which makes reference to Mpambani.
"The applicant (Mpambani) is the only party to these proceedings. She is not acting on anyone else's behalf. She has not brought the application on behalf of her son, Molemo, and any reference in terms of urgency pertains to her. It must be made very clear that the applicant only seeks urgent relief to remove any reference to her and not any other statements made in the post or the video," argued Olivier.
In response to this, advocate Tembeka Ngcukaitobi, who was representing Du-Pont and Khumalo, said Mpambani's son, Jub Jub, would be a direct beneficiary should the court grant Mpambani what she was asking for because he is the one accused of rape.
Olivier told the court Du-Pont had accused her client of witchcraft and using muti, which put her life in danger.
She argued that, in African culture, such stereotypes had led to the murder of women by community members.
Attached to her argument was an article of a woman murdered by the community after being accused of witchcraft.
In response to this, Ngcukaitobi pointed out that at no point in her statement did Du-Pont state that Mpambani used witchcraft and said that it was a self-description from Mpambani.
"Secondly, the applicant's own son has stated that one, Kelly Khumalo, used muti to lure him away from Ms Du-Pont and that it was the applicant who told him this. In other words, it was Mr Maarohanye who said that my mother told me that Ms Khumalo used muti," he said.
Ngcukaitobi further argued that the correlation between muti and witchcraft, which Olivier tried to make, was incorrect because muti was simply medicine, "like Panado", and did not amount to witchcraft.
The matter was struck off the urgent court roll - with costs.