The court considered an appeal on the basis that the court below erred in not granting the interdict. The court had to consider whether an inference can be drawn from a statement made by the respondent in video footage, that he committed a crime in terms of section 2(1)(g) of the Animal Protection Act, and if so, whether one can infer that this would be an ongoing practice so as to constitute the apprehension of harm. Before looking at the merits of the appeal, the court found that the appellant had failed to act promptly in bringing this matter before the court. When looking at the merits, the court found that there was no evidence to show that a reasonable apprehension of harm had been established, or that it would in the future. The video footage did not reveal what happened to the blesbok but expressed an intention that something could happen. The court found that the appellant had failed to show substance in its argument and that respondent had breached the Act. The minority judgment disagreed with the majority and found that the interdict ought to have been granted to protect the live animals.