Blue Mbombo alleges threats from Thami Ndlala, who denies them. Here's what the recent urgent High Court order does and doesn't say.
Blue Mbombo and Thami Ndlala. Picture: Instagram, X, @blue_mbombo
A public and confusing clash between media personality Blue Mbombo and businessman Thami Ndlala dominated social media at the weekend and landed in the Gauteng High Court.
In a statement released on Friday, 2 October, Mbombo claimed that Ndlala had subjected her to death threats, verbal abuse and emotional torment for several months. She also alleged that he hired people to intimidate her and directed threats at her child. A well-placed source close to the matter told The Citizen that she opened a case with the South African Police Service and that an interim protection order had been granted against him. This was confirmed through paperwork seen by The Citizen.
Mbombo said she had hoped to handle the matter privately, and that she was not motivated by a wish to damage Ndlala’s reputation. She asked the media to respect the privacy and safety of her child and family.
Ndlala’s response
Ndlala, who is married to media personality Lerato Kganyago, responded through the Thami Ndlala Foundation on Saturday, 3 October, and said he “categorically denies” the claims. He further said he would address them through the appropriate legal processes.
The foundation also said the material referred to in Mbombo’s protection-order application had not been included in the documents before him. It added that Ndlala “emphatically rejects” any suggestion that he would threaten a child’s life as he is a father of two young daughters (much to the surprise of social media users who keep up with his marriage to the media personality who has been open about her struggle with fertility).
Several gossip blogs also reported that Ndlala is pursuing a R1 million defamation claim. Over the weekend, he also shared the outcome of an urgent application before the court, which is a separate step to the above-mentioned defamation claim.
What the court order says
Ndlala’s legal team approached the High Court in Johannesburg on an urgent basis, and an order was issued on Saturday, 3 October under Case No. 2026-244369. The respondents are Mbombo, Media24 (Pty) Ltd t/a Daily Sun, and Daily Sun editor Amos Mananyetso, though reporting has widely described the order as Ndlala’s “victory” against Mbombo.
According to the order, the matter was heard as urgent under Uniform Rule 6(12), with the usual forms and time periods dispensed with where necessary.
Judge Wentzel-Thompson issued a rule nisi calling on the respondents to show cause on 9 November 2026 why the orders sought should not be made final. Those orders include interdicting Mbombo from publishing, as established fact, allegations that Ndlala threatened her, hired people to intimidate her, or threatened her child’s life. They also include directing her to remove those statements from Instagram, TikTok, and other platforms within 24 hours of service.
The order interdicts Media24 (as the company that owns Daily Sun) and Mananyetso from publishing or republishing the same allegations as established facts. Pending the return date, only the paragraphs dealing with the media respondents and costs operate as interim interdicts.
Service by email and WhatsApp was authorised because of an intended publication on 4 October. Additionally, any respondent may, within five days, anticipate the return date or apply to vary or discharge the interim relief. Costs of the urgent hearing are reserved.
Thereafter, Daily Sun reported that Mbombo had been ordered to remove her posts, and noted that the order does not mean the court has found her allegations false.
Why a court sat on a Saturday
Urgent applications can be heard outside normal hours when an applicant persuades the court that waiting would cause serious harm. Rule 6(12) lets a judge relax the usual rules in those cases. Here, the order itself cites an intended publication the next day.
The other parties can oppose the relief on 9 November.
