5 HMA 36-18 HC 263/18 • [7] Desisting from abusing school property such as buses and furniture in furtherance of private political interests unconnected to the schools, the teachers, the children and their parents. The applicants argued that their application was a classic case for an interdict. They . . said it met all the requirements for that sort of remedy. These requirements are: • a prima facie right, even if it be open to some doubt; • a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm if the relief is not granted; • that the balance of convenience favours the granting of an interim interdict; • that there is no other satisfactory remedy; see Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1 [8] The applicants said the matter was urgent. The respondents' actions violated constitutional rights. The violations were on-going. With the elections drawing closer the violations were set to escalate and become intense. Children were being exposed to hate speech and inflammatory language. The need to act was now, not later. Accompanying the application was a certif1cate of urgency by a legal practitioner vouching for the urgency of the matter. [9] The second respondent did not oppose the application. He promised to abide by the decision of the court. The first respondent did oppose. Its grounds were multiple. It first raised technical preliminary objections. It then answered the applicants' case on the merits. [10] The first respondent's first technical objection was that the application was fatally defective for want of compliance with the Rules of the High Court, particularly r 241 [ 1]. This is the mle that prescribes that Form No 29B shall accompany chamber applications, unless the chamber application is one to be served on interested parties, in which case Form No 29 is to be used, but with appropriate modifications. These forms are set out in the Schedule of Forms at the back of the Rules. 1 1914 AD 221