Somizi Mhlongo has defied a court order in a protracted battle over the popular television show ‘Dinner at Somizi’s’.

Flamboyant showbiz icon Somizi Mhlongo has shown the Johannesburg High Court the middle finger by defying a court order in a protracted battle over the popular television show Dinner at Somizi’s, which aired on MultiChoice’s channel 1 Magic TV.

Mhlongo failed to submit heads of argument and a practice note in a theft of intellectual property lawsuit filed against him by trail-blazing TV producer Hastings Moeng.

Justice Jabulani Ellington Dlamini issued an injunction on April 22 ordering Mhlongo to submit the heads of argument and practice note and pay Moeng’s legal costs, which he incurred after paying his lawyer Mabu Marweshe to oppose the celebrity choreographer’s application for an exception, claiming he had nothing to do with the lawsuit.

Dlamini’s order, which was seen by Sunday World, reads in part: “The first respondent is directed to deliver, within five days of the service of this order, the heads of argument and practice note to the applicant.

“The first respondent is ordered to pay the costs of this application.”

In court papers seen by this publication, Marweshe stated that Mhlongo had cocked a snook at the order.

He is now pleading with the court to strike out the Sarafina star’s application to oppose Moeng’s theft of intellectual property lawsuit against Mhlongo and his production company, Barleader TV, for allegedly stealing -Dinner at Somizi’s and airing it on MultiChoice’s channel, 1 Magic TV.

Mhlongo is the first respondent, while Barleader TV and MultiChoice are the second and third respondents.

In court papers, Marweshe seems to express his frustration with the trio’s handling of the case.

He said summons and particulars of claims were served on Mhlongo, Barleader TV and MultiChoice in 2021, noticing their intention to sue Mhlongo for theft of intellectual property.

On February 3, 2021, Mhlongo and Barleader TV filed a joint notice of intent to defend the action through Mabuza Attorneys.

On February 4, 2021, MultiChoice served and also filed a notice of intention to defend the action.

Marweshe further stated that on March 2, 2021, Mabuza Attorneys filed a notice of withdrawal as attorneys of record.

On March 4, 2021, MultiChoice served and filed an exception, stating that Moeng had failed to produce evidence linking them to the suit as they were merely airing the show on their channel.

Marweshe further submitted that they served and filed a notice of bar on March 5, 2021, calling upon Mhlongo to file his plea.

He said Mhlongo’s lawyers, Mabuza Attorneys, served Moeng with a signed exception at midnight on March 11, 2021 and later served him with a notice of appointment as attorneys of record the following day.

Marweshe said that on March 23, 2021, Moeng sent correspondence through his attorneys of record to Mhlongo, Barleader TV and MultiChoice, requesting indulgence to serve a notice of intention to amend the particulars of the claim.

“Mabuza Attorneys failed, neglected, and/or refused to acknowledge the receipt of the letter, only Webber Wentzel attorneys for the third respondent (acknowledged receipt),” read the papers.

He said Moeng served the trio with particulars of the claim on April 16, 2021.

“On April 18, 2021, the applicant, through his attorneys, dispatched a substantive letter to the first respondent, enquiring if he would persist with his exception, notwithstanding the fact that the applicant had already served them with a copy of the amended particulars of claim.

“The letter clearly stated that should the first respondent persist with his exception; costs shall be sought on a de bonis propriis basis,” read the papers.

He stated that the letter further demanded that Mhlongo respond on or before April 20, 2021, failing which the Moeng would cause a notice to oppose the exception.

On April 21, 2021, he said, Moeng served Mhlongo with a notice of intention to oppose his exception and subsequently with the opposing affidavit.

“The applicant opposed the exception, and since then, the first respondent has failed to take the necessary legal steps to file his heads of argument, practice note, and set the matter down for hearing.

“The applicant filed his heads of argument in quest to bring the exception to finality on May 24, 2021,” he stated in the court papers.

He said Mhlongo’s lawyers, Mabuza Attorneys, served and filed a notice of withdrawal on August 11, 2021.

“On or about June 28, 2022, the applicant launched the application to compel the first respondent to deliver within three (3) days of the court order the heads of argument and the practice note.

“The applicant further sought relief that should the first respondent fail to deliver his heads of argument and practice note within three (3) days of the court order, their defence in the main action should be struck out,” read the papers.

He said Barleader’s submitted its withdrawal notice of its exception on August 11, 2022.

Marweshe said Moeng filed his amended notice of motion and supplementary affidavit on February 23 this year, effectively extending the period for the delivery of the heads of argument and practice note to five days.

“The first respondent did not file his notice of intention to oppose. The applicant filed his heads of argument and the practice note on April 16 2024 and proceeded to set the matter down for hearing on an unopposed roll,” he stated.

He said Justice Dlamini issued a court order on April 20, 2022, instructing Mhlongo to deliver, within five days of the service of this order, the heads of argument and practice note to the applicant, and to pay the costs of this application, but he failed to do so.

As a result of Mhlongo’s failure to submit the required papers and pay the costs, Marweshe wants Mhlongo’s defence in the main case of theft of intellectual property to be struck out or set aside.

Attempts to solicit comments from Mhlongo drew a blank.