Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd and Others v Du Toit and Others (B1342-2023) [2023] ZAGPPHC 2025; 2024 (3) SA 198 (GP) (18 December 2023)

This case involves a dispute between business partners of a company called "Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd," which organised and promoted boxing matches between TikTok "stars" who had online feuds.

The first respondent, Francois Jakobus du Toit, claimed he came up with the idea for the business. The applicants, including Tikbox League (Pty) Ltd, Daniel Christoffel van Heerden, and Lindrie Gouws, also ran a similar company called "Dominant Slap League (Pty) Ltd," which hosted "slap fights." The dispute arose after the first event generated income, with the applicants claiming that Du Toit was a delinquent director and seeking ticket sale payments. Du Toit resigned and started a similar company, "Tikbox South Africa (Pty) Ltd."

The legality of the contract and business is questioned, as it involves intentional bodily harm, potentially constituting assault or worse. The court considers consent and the legality of consent in sports, concluding that the nature of boxing makes it inherently dangerous. The court dismisses the application, referring the matter to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and the National Prosecuting Authority to address the legality of the company's purpose and potential crimes committed.

The ratio decidendi, or core legal principle, underlying the decision in this case is the court's determination that the contract and business at the center of the dispute are unlawful and contra bones mores (against public morality). The court finds that the nature of the contract, which involves arranging boxing matches between members of the public with social media feuds, is inherently dangerous and carries a risk of serious injury or death. The court concludes that such activities are unlawful and go against public policy, as they encourage and profit from intentional bodily harm. As a result, the court dismisses the application and refers the matter to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and the National Prosecuting Authority for further investigation and potential legal action.

The court in this case relied on several key pieces of case law and legislation to support its reasoning:
1. S v Marx 1962 (1) SA 848 (N): Defined assault as "the act of intentionally and unlawfully applying force to another directly or indirectly."
2. S v Robinson and Others 1968 (1) SA 666 (A): Discussed the concept of extenuating circumstances in crimes, specifically addressing the notion of consent in murder.
3. Snyman's Criminal Law, Seventh Edition: Outlined the requirements for lawful consent as a defense, including voluntariness, mental capacity, and awareness of the act's nature.
4. Jonathan Burchell, South African Criminal Law & Procedure, Volume 1, Fourth Edition: Distinguished between lawful sports and unlawful contests, emphasising the need for rules and intent not to inflict serious injury in lawful sports.
5. Austin v Morrall & Others (1905) 22 SC 67: De Villiers CJ's obiter dictum statement that a friendly boxing contest not intended to cause injury would not be illegal was considered but found to be outdated given the potential for injury in any boxing match.
6. Van Jaarsveld v Bridges (3409) [2010] ZASCA 76: Highlighted the court's duty to develop common law while promoting the spirit, purport, and objects of the Bill of Rights.
7. Prevention of Organised Crime Act 121 of 1998: Defined "unlawful activity" broadly to include conduct constituting a crime or contravening any law and outlined offenses related to benefiting from proceeds of unlawful activities.