Ed (Appellant) v SD (Respondent) 2025 SDCR 12
Ed (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDCR 12
| Date | 20 October 2025 |
| Judges |
|
| Held |
|
| Ruling | 3-0 |
| Applicable precedent |
|
MAJORITY OPINION by Judge Hmquestionable=
(with Judge Terak and Brandmal agreeing)
Introduction
[1] The Petitioner has filed an application to quash a finding of contempt issued against him by Judge Creative, as well as a request for an injunction on the aforementioned finding. The Contempt order had been previously denied as the Court had found that it had no jurisdiction over the defendant. The Court later overturned its order and found the Petitioner in contempt.
On the injunction
[2] This Court denied the emergency stay as the petition did, in our judgment, have a high likelihood of failure. However, we believe to be expedient to clarify what standards Courts are to implement regarding injunctions. It has to be constitutional and in line with precedent.
[3] This Court believes that proportionality is the best test for this purpose. In In re Article 4 s5 of the Executive Act 2023 [2025] SDSC 9 the Supreme Court found proportionality to be a constitutionally consistent way to apply a different concept, implicit cannibalization. In Reference re Vice Presidential Confirmation [2025] SDSC 35 the Court used proportionality as a measure on what remedy to implement. This Court will therefore now apply the test as established in Birdish (Appellant) v State of SimDemocracy (Respondent) [2025] SDCR 6.
[4] For there to be a legitimate purpose, the requested injunction cannot be more likely than not unlawful, as is the case when the filing is likely to be unsuccessful. The injunction must also be suitable to fulfill its purpose. There may not be another measure the Court or the applicant could implement, that has the same effect while having less negative consequences than an injunction (necessity). Lastly, the injunction must be appropriate. In the case of an injunction, which is extraordinary relief, that means that either there is a high likelihood of success OR that the disadvantageous effects of not granting the injunction, when it would have been objectively correct to do so, far outweigh the disadvantageous effects of granting the injunction when it objectively should not have been granted.
[5] Here, the injunction would have failed the first hurdle, the legitimate purpose. The Court denied it accordingly.
Petitioner’s arguments
[6] The Petitioner’s argument is that this is not in keeping with binding precedent from Brandmal, ex parte State of SimDemocracy (Appellant) v Birdish (Respondent) [2025] SDCR 6 (“SD v Birdish”), which found that a Court cannot overturn its decisions in certain cases. The decision states (at [4]):
“To expand this to include final verdicts — especially verdicts on contempt — would both distort the statutory language and risk eroding judicial finality.”
Applicability of SD v Birdish
[7] SD v Birdish is not applicable in this case. The decision by the trial judge did not conclusively find the Petitioner not guilty of contempt of court. Rather, the Court merely stated that it had no jurisdiction. Such a ruling is not a “final verdict”.
[8] Therefore, the Court is permitted to overturn its ruling on this matter. In contrast, a decision at the end of a trial (like a ruling on the guilt or liability of the defendant) cannot be overturned as that does not fall under the ambit of Article 5 §3 of the CPA.
Conclusion
[9] The petition is denied.