Black Coffee’s bid to get music exec jailed advances

Controversial music executive and social media commentator Nota Baloyi has suffered another setback in his long-running legal battle with DJ Black Coffee after the Johannesburg high court ordered him to file his heads of argument within 10 court days in contempt proceedings that could result in a 60-day jail sentence.

The interlocutory order, granted by acting judge Sarita Liebenberg on July 16, advances Black Coffee’s application to have Baloyi imprisoned for 60 days for allegedly refusing to comply with an earlier high court order directing him to apologise for comments about the internationally acclaimed DJ.

The order further provides that should Baloyi fail to comply, Black Coffee may invoke the court’s revised practice directives. Baloyi has also been ordered to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.

The latest ruling marks another chapter in an increasingly bitter legal dispute between the pair, which stems from remarks Baloyi made during an episode of the SA Hub podcast in September 2025.

Black Coffee, whose real name is Nkosinathi Maphumulo, successfully approached the high court last December, obtaining an order compelling Baloyi to publish an apology after a court finding that remarks made during the podcast were unlawful.

During the interview, Baloyi allegedly claimed that Maphumulo had engaged in dubious financial dealings during his divorce from actress and television personality Enhle Mbali Mlotshwa. The court ordered Baloyi to retract the statements and issue a public apology.

Maphumulo alleges that Baloyi has failed to comply with that order.

He launched contempt proceedings in January, arguing that Baloyi’s refusal to apologise amounted to a deliberate disregard of the authority of the court and warranted a custodial sentence.

“It is apparent that Baloyi regards himself as above the law and holds the view that he is entitled to act in contravention of a binding order of the court simply because he disagrees with it,” Maphumulo states in his contempt application.

According to the application, Baloyi has deliberately failed to publish the court-ordered apology despite being aware of the judgment, leaving Maphumulo with no alternative but to seek relief through contempt proceedings.

Maphumulo argues that the dispute is no longer about whether Baloyi agrees with the judgment, but whether court orders can simply be ignored without consequence.

The Sunday Times has established, however, that Baloyi has vigorously opposed the contempt application, describing it as legally defective and an abuse of court process.

In papers filed with the high court, Baloyi says he has complied with the aspects of the order requiring him to stop publishing statements about Maphumulo by removing all references to the DJ from his social media platforms.

“Since early December 2025, I have made no further publications or statements naming Maphumulo on any platform. He is fully aware of my compliance with the cease-and-desist aspects of the order and my appeal when this contempt application was launched,” Baloyi states.

He argues that the original judgment remains the subject of an appeal that he lodged shortly after it was handed down, making the contempt application premature.

“In any event, contempt of court requiring committal is a criminal matter that must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. Maphumulo has failed to establish wilful and [in bad faith] disobedience on my part,” he argues.

The central part of Baloyi’s defence is that he refuses to publish the apology because doing so would require him to publicly declare that his previous statements were false — something he says he cannot honestly do.

“Maphumulo’s complaint centres on the fact that I have not published a specific retraction and apology mandated by the order. I make no apology for this.

“That requires me to state publicly that my previous statements were false and defamatory and had no basis in fact. I stand by the truthfulness and public interest nature of my statements. To publish the mandated text would require me to disseminate falsehoods, which I will not do.”

Baloyi also accuses Maphumulo of attempting to intimidate him by allegedly contacting his mother in an effort to pressure him during the litigation.

He has asked the court not only to dismiss the contempt application but also to award him R25,000 in damages for the distress allegedly caused to his mother.

The latest order by Liebenberg does not determine whether Baloyi is guilty of contempt. Instead, it clears another procedural hurdle by compelling him to file his legal arguments within 10 court days and ordering him to pay the costs of the interlocutory application.

The substantive contempt application will then move closer to being argued before the high court.

If Maphumulo ultimately succeeds, Baloyi faces the prospect of being committed to prison for 60 days for allegedly wilfully disobeying the earlier court order.

Maphumulo’s court papers argue that Baloyi’s conduct demonstrates a continuing disregard for judicial authority and that allowing litigants to ignore binding court orders would undermine the administration of justice.

“Baloyi has historically demonstrated, and continues to demonstrate, total and unapologetic disregard for the law and the authority of this court. Such unlawful conduct cannot be countenanced,” Maphumulo argues.

The case is expected to return to court once Baloyi has filed his heads of argument, after which the court will determine whether his refusal to publish the court-ordered apology amounts to contempt of court warranting imprisonment.

At the time of going to print, Nota had not filed his arguments.