The highly anticipated probe by Carte Blanche into the alleged fraudulent activities of Malalane attorney Zietta Janse van Rensburg aired as scheduled on Sunday night.

Lowvelder reports her attempt to halt the programme with an ‘extremely’ urgent court application was dismissed with costs.

Janse van Rensburg served both Carte Blanche and Lowvelder with her application on Saturday afternoon. The case was heard by the Mpumalanga Division of the High Court at 15:00 on Sunday, just hours before the broadcast. Acting Judge Naomi Engelbrecht ruled that the application lacked urgency and struck the case from the roll.

Janse van Rensburg described the broadcast as a co-ordinated attack on her. She sought an indefinite interdict against Carte Blanche to prevent the episode’s airing, demanded the removal of ‘aggressive social media marketing’ related to the programme, and requested an apology to replace these posts and comments.

Lowvelder, which its legal team argued was wrongly cited in the application, was accused of sensationalism, with Carte Blanche described as an enforcer. Janse van Rensburg claimed the publication ‘unashamedly exploited her for profit’ and that she had been ‘stalked and harassed’ in over 40 articles since March.

She demanded that Irma Green, the author of these articles and group editor of Caxton Local Media, be barred from reporting on her. She also insisted that Green post an apology on both her own social media wall, tagging Janse van Rensburg, and Janse van Rensburg’s wall.

Janse van Rensburg’s demands extended to the JSE-listed company Caxton and CTP Publishers and Printers Limited and its operational arm, CTP Limited. She requested they publish an ‘apology banner’ on their website for two weeks and that their marketing team share apologies on their social media groups. She further demanded that the front page of the next two issues of Lowvelder feature an apology banner.

Her application was deemed a serious abuse of court process by the legal teams of both Carte Blanche and Lowvelder.

Adv Hendrik van Rensburg, representing Janse van Rensburg, argued the programme’s content was false, claiming she was not given a fair opportunity to respond and had not been informed about the broadcast details. He stated that it would cause irreparable harm to her reputation.

However, Adv Mfundo Salukazana, for Carte Blanche, countered that she was given multiple opportunities to respond and had been informed about the content over a month in advance.

Despite this, she failed to provide a substantive reply. Carte Blanche attached correspondence showing that on October 16, Janse van Rensburg was invited for an interview. In her reply the following day, she confirmed her willingness to participate and stated: “I am awaiting approval of the production team, as the complaints are dealt with in sequence and I am bound by the agreement. The bulk of the team is abroad, but I will have confirmation soonest.”

On November 14, Carte Blanche informed her that while they had received extensive correspondence from her, none addressed the posed questions. She was given a final deadline of November 15 to respond.

Adv James Stone, representing Caxton through Du Toit-Smuts & Partners, supported the argument that the application lacked urgency, describing her claims against Lowvelder as not pressing.

Stone argued her demands to remove all articles and social media comments, as well as for apology banners, were frivolous.

On Tuesday, Janse van Rensburg sent new demands to Lowvelder, asking how they became aware of Carte Blanche’s broadcast. She seemed to believe Lowvelder – a printer and publisher – had insights into the show’s marketing statistics and requested access to the same data.

Finally, she demanded ‘post-case reporting’, including cryptic terms such as: “Any and all reporting on the matter after the matter: Platforms, Copies of reporting/formats of reporting, Data reach of said reporting (Share, comment, like) (all details included).”

Lowvelder’s prepublication attorney Helene Viljoen dismissed the correspondence as ‘a nonsensical upchuck of telegram-style terms seemingly intended to communicate that Lowvelder owes her reader data’. She added: “Lowvelder owes her no such thing and is entitled to keep reporting on her in the diligent way it has done to date.”