The Johannesburg Magistrate’s Court has dismissed an application for a protection order brought by Southern African Music Rights Organisation (SAMRO) chief executive officer Annabelle Lebethe against SABC Song of the Year Awards organiser Owen Ndlovu, finding that the conduct complained of did not amount to harassment as defined in law.
Lebethe approached the court in March 2025 in terms of the Protection from Harassment Act, alleging that Ndlovu’s conduct, including messages he sent, his presence at SAMRO’s offices while carrying a firearm and comments made on a podcast, constituted harassment. An interim protection order was granted on 7 March 2025 pending the outcome of the matter.
However, after hearing oral evidence on 8 December 2025, 12 March 2026 and 19 June 2026 and considering written submissions from both parties, the court ruled that the application should be dismissed and the interim protection order discharged.
The judgment , delivered on 17 July 2026 details a deteriorating relationship Lebethe and Ndlovu, who is the is a SAMRO member and the sole member of One Rights Management CC, which previously provided specialised services to the former under a service agreement.
Both parties work in the same building at 20 De Korte Street in Johannesburg, with Lebethe’s office on the third floor and Ndlovu’s business operating from the seventh floor.
The court noted that separate High Court proceedings are pending over attempts to evict Ndlovu’s company from the building.
The judgment also refers to the controversial Fundudzi report, commissioned by SAMRO in 2023 to investigate the alleged misappropriation of funds. According to the court, the report remains a contentious issue among SAMRO members and featured prominently in disputes between Lebethe and Ndlovu.
Court papers reveal that Ndlovu demanded a meeting with SAMRO’s board in September 2024 after claiming he was being defamed. During the organisation’s annual general meeting in December that year, he called for a vote to remove the board, on which Lebethe serves.
It also heard that Ndlovu claimed that he opened a corruption case against Lebethe and the chairperson of the SAMRO board on 24 February 2025.
Days later, One Rights Management’s service agreement and lease with SAMRO were terminated, prompting Ndlovu to launch a successful spoliation application after he alleged that the organisation had unlawfully deprived him of possession of his business premises.
The court said in her application for the protection order , Lebethe relied heavily on an incident that occurred on 5 March 2025, during which Ndlovu visited the SAMRO building while carrying a licensed firearm.
However, two witnesses called by Lebethe testified that Ndlovu did not remove or brandished the weapon.
Instead, they said, only the top of the firearm was visible in his waistband and that he explained he was carrying it for his own protection because he felt intimidated by security personnel.
Importantly, both witnesses testified that Ndlovu neither threatened them nor made any reference to Lebethe during the encounter.
The magistrate found that there was no evidence that Ndlovu had gone to the building to confront Lebethe or attempted to enter her office, contradicting aspects of her original application.
The court also considered comments made by Ndlovu during a podcast recorded in April 2025, after the interim protection order had already been granted.
Although the podcast contained serious allegations against Lebethe relating to the Fundudzi report and SAMRO’s management, the court noted that those statements are already the subject of separate defamation proceedings.
The magistrate held a view that the podcast focused on allegations of corruption and governance rather than conduct amounting to harassment.
While the court found that one message sent by Ndlovu in December 2024 could potentially be construed as harassment, it concluded that a single incident was insufficient to satisfy the requirements of the Protection from Harassment Act, which generally requires repeated conduct or behaviour causing serious distress or fear.
The judgment was also critical of Lebethe’s application, finding that she had failed to disclose material facts when seeking the interim protection order.
Among the omissions identified by the court were that Ndlovu had stated he was carrying the firearm for his own protection, that he had not gone looking for Lebethe on the day in question and that his lease had already been terminated before the incident relied upon in the application.
The court said the interim protection order had been obtained on “half truths and incomplete information” that prejudiced Ndlovu, although it stopped short of finding that Lebethe had abused the court process.
The application was dismissed, the interim protection order was discharged and no order as to costs was made.
Ndlovu said he is on cloud nine because the court has vindicated him.
“It took me a year going to court with the monies that I did not have. I feel vindicated, I’m happy that the court has protected my reputation and dignity by dismissing the application for the protection order,” he said.
Lebethe had not responded to our written questions at the time of publication.
