President Cyril Ramaphosa has secured an interim interdict preventing Parliament's Section 89 impeachment committee from proceeding with public hearings while he challenges the legality of the independent panel report into the Phala Phala matter.

The Western Cape High Court granted the interim relief on Friday, in a split 2-1 decision by a full Bench comprising judges André le Grange, Matthew Francis and Diane Davis.

The order temporarily halts the committee's public impeachment hearings until Ramaphosa's review application is determined. The review is scheduled to be heard from 2 to 4 September 2026.

The impeachment hearings will resume from then and consider the ramifications of a reviewed Phala Phala report.

Handing down the judgment, Judge Francis said the court had considered the matter under significant time constraints because of its urgency.

"This court has carefully considered the weighty arguments advanced by the parties in the limited time available given the urgency of the matter," he said.

Francis explained that the Bench of three judges delivered three separate judgments.

"The first judgment concludes, for reasons set out therein, that the president has not made out a case for an interim interdict. It proposes that the application be dismissed," he said.

"The second judgment concludes that the president had made out the case for an interim interdict for the reasons set out in that judgment. It proposes that an interdict for a limited duration be granted.

"The third judgment concurs with the second judgment. The second judgment is the majority judgment."

The court ordered that Parliament be interdicted from proceeding with the public impeachment hearings pending the review of the Section 89 independent panel report (Phala Phala report).

Ramaphosa had argued that allowing Parliament's impeachment inquiry to proceed before the court had ruled on the validity of the report would cause him irreparable harm.

Represented by advocate Wim Trengove, Ramaphosa's legal team contended that subjecting the president to a public impeachment process based on a report that could later be declared illegal would inflict lasting reputational damage that could not be remedied after the fact.

If the panel's report was found to be illegal, they argued, the constitutional protection would be undermined.

Ramaphosa's lawyers also attacked the Phala Phala report, chaired by former chief justice Sandile Ngcobo, as irrational and legally flawed. They argued that the panel misconstrued its mandate, misinterpreted the evidence relating to the theft of $580 000 of foreign currency from Ramaphosa's Phala Phala farm and made findings beyond the allegations it had been asked to assess.

The president's legal team maintained that it was not seeking to prevent Parliament from exercising its constitutional oversight powers permanently.

Instead, they described the application as a limited and temporary suspension of the impeachment inquiry until the review application was decided in September.

Ramaphosa's team argued that a short delay was preferable to proceeding with an inquiry founded on a report that might be set aside.