An interdict in law is a court order that either forbids a person from doing something harmful or compels them to take a specific action. The word is used mainly in South African and Scottish courts, both of which draw on Roman-law traditions. In English and American courts, the same remedy is called an injunction. The mechanics are the same across these systems: when money alone cannot fix the problem, a court steps in and tells a party to stop what they are doing or to do what they should have been doing.
Interdict and Injunction Mean the Same Thing
If “interdict” sounds unfamiliar, “injunction” probably does not. South African courts use “interdict” because of their Roman-Dutch heritage. Scottish courts use it too. English and American courts reach for “injunction” instead, but a judge in any of these systems is doing the same thing: evaluating whether a situation warrants direct intervention rather than an eventual award of damages.
One point of confusion worth clearing up for readers in Louisiana. “Interdiction” in Louisiana law refers to a guardianship process for adults who cannot care for themselves. It has nothing to do with stopping someone from acting. Louisiana uses “injunction” for the remedy described here.
Types of Interdicts
Interdicts are grouped by what the order requires and by how long it is meant to last.
By What the Order Requires
- A prohibitory interdict forbids the respondent from doing something: building across a boundary line, using a trade name, contacting a person they have been harassing.
- A mandatory interdict compels the respondent to take a specific action: restoring utilities to a tenant, handing over documents, resuming a service.
Most interdicts are prohibitory. Mandatory interdicts are harder to obtain because courts are generally more cautious about ordering someone to act than about ordering someone to stop.
By Duration
- An interim interdict is temporary. It is granted before the court has heard the full case and is meant to freeze the situation while both sides prepare their arguments. In the United States, this corresponds to a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction.1Legal Information Institute (LII). Injunction
- A final or perpetual interdict is permanent. It is issued after a full hearing on all the evidence and remains in force indefinitely unless a court later modifies or sets it aside.
In the U.S. system specifically, courts recognize three forms. A temporary restraining order is an emergency measure, sometimes granted without notice to the other side, that lasts no more than 14 days unless extended. A preliminary injunction follows a hearing and keeps things in place while the full case plays out. A permanent injunction is part of the final judgment after trial.1Legal Information Institute (LII). Injunction
What a Court Requires Before Granting One
Courts do not grant interdicts just because someone asks. The applicant must satisfy a specific legal test, and the test depends on whether the order is interim or final and which system is applying it.
South African Law
For a final interdict, the applicant must prove three things on a balance of probabilities: a clear legal right that deserves protection, an injury that has occurred or is reasonably expected to occur, and the absence of any other adequate remedy. The last element matters more than people expect. If money damages or another legal process could solve the problem, the court will usually decline.
For an interim interdict, the threshold is lower because the decision is preliminary. The applicant must show a right established at least on a prima facie basis (even if open to some doubt), a well-grounded fear of irreparable harm without the order, that the balance of convenience favors granting it, and that no other satisfactory remedy exists.2Southern African Legal Information Institute. Reasons for the Interim Interdict 4264/2023 ZAECMKHC 23 “Balance of convenience” is practical: the court weighs the harm the applicant will suffer without the order against the harm the respondent will suffer with it.
United States Law
American courts apply a four-factor test for permanent injunctions, established by the Supreme Court in eBay Inc. v. MercExchange. The plaintiff must show irreparable injury, that legal remedies such as money damages are inadequate, that the balance of hardships between the parties warrants equitable relief, and that the public interest would not be harmed by granting the order.3Justia. eBay Inc. v. MercExchange, L.L.C. 547 U.S. 388 (2006) For preliminary injunctions, the analysis is similar but also asks whether the plaintiff is likely to succeed on the merits of the underlying case.1Legal Information Institute (LII). Injunction
The overlap between the two systems is not an accident. Both descend from the same equitable principles: a genuine right at stake, the threat of real harm that money cannot fix, and no better alternative.
When People Seek an Interdict
Interdicts come into play when the damage is ongoing, imminent, or simply cannot be undone with a check. Waiting for a full trial would let the harm pile up beyond repair. Common situations include:
- Property disputes, such as stopping a trespass, encroachment, or an unlawful eviction.
- Harassment and domestic violence, where a person is ordered to stay away from someone they have been threatening. Many jurisdictions have streamlined procedures for these protective orders, and some allow them on an emergency basis without the respondent being present.
- Intellectual property, where unauthorized use of trademarks, copyrighted material, or trade secrets is causing harm that is difficult to quantify day by day.
- Contractual obligations, such as enforcing a non-compete clause or preventing disclosure of confidential information.
- Environmental harm, where construction or industrial activity causing pollution is halted while the legality of the activity is sorted out.
The thread running through all of these is urgency. If the ordinary pace of litigation would allow irreversible harm, an interdict is the tool courts reach for.
How an Interdict Is Obtained
The process starts with an application or petition filed in the appropriate court. The applicant submits a founding affidavit, a sworn statement setting out the facts, the legal right at stake, and the reason the court should intervene. Supporting evidence such as photographs, correspondence, contracts, or witness statements goes with the application.
For interim interdicts, the process can move quickly. In genuinely urgent cases a court may grant the order on the same day the application is filed, sometimes without hearing from the other side first. In the U.S. federal system, a temporary restraining order issued without notice to the opposing party expires within 14 days unless extended for good cause.4Legal Information Institute (LII). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65 – Injunctions and Restraining Orders A hearing is then scheduled as soon as possible so the respondent can make their case.
For a final interdict, the process is more thorough. Both sides file written arguments and evidence, the respondent files an answering affidavit disputing the applicant’s claims, the applicant may reply, and the court holds a full hearing before deciding whether to grant a permanent order.
U.S. federal courts generally require a party seeking a temporary restraining order or preliminary injunction to post a security bond covering any costs and damages the opposing party would suffer if the order turns out to have been wrongly granted. The amount is at the judge’s discretion, and courts sometimes waive it or set it low, particularly in public interest cases.4Legal Information Institute (LII). Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 65 – Injunctions and Restraining Orders South African courts do not generally require a bond for interdicts, though costs orders can shift legal expenses to the losing party.
What Happens If Someone Violates an Interdict
Ignoring a court-ordered interdict is contempt of court. Penalties vary by jurisdiction but typically include fines, imprisonment, or both.5Legal Information Institute (LII). Contempt of Court In the U.S. federal system, courts have broad discretion to punish disobedience of any lawful order through fines or imprisonment.6Office of the Law Revision Counsel. United States Code Title 18 Section 401
South African courts follow a similar pattern. A respondent who flouts an interdict can face a fine, a suspended sentence of imprisonment conditioned on future compliance, or direct imprisonment in severe cases. Suspended committal orders are often used as a first step, warning the respondent that continued defiance will activate the jail sentence. The graduated approach gives people a chance to comply before the harshest consequences kick in.
Beyond the formal penalties, violating an interdict damages your credibility with the court in the underlying case. If you disagree with an interdict, the practical move is to challenge it through legal channels rather than ignore it.