Booysen v Major and Another (5043/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 273 (31 August 2021)

Booysen v Major and Another (5043/2021) [2021] ZAWCHC 273 (31 August 2021)

The applicant failed to disclose that he had known about the respondent's posts since 2017, thereby misleading the court on urgency. The posts had been in the public domain for years, and the applicant did not demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, as his reputation had not suffered actual damage and he had already been suspended due to the allegations. The respondent's speech was found to be reasonable and protected in the context of South Africa's endemic rape culture and the need for survivor advocacy. The applicant has a satisfactory alternative remedy in a defamation action, and the balance of convenience does not favour granting the interdict. The application...

Citation
[2021] ZAWCHC 273
Parties
Applicant: Melvin Booysen; Respondent: June Dolly Major
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2021
Case Number
5043/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.
Judges
Baartman
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Defamation, Urgency, Social Media Publication, Balance of Convenience
Civil Procedure Delict Interim Interdict Defamation Urgency Social Media Publication Balance of Convenience

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Melvin Booysen

Applicant

June Dolly Major

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi; Final Determination of Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondent from posting information about him on social media platforms.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant established urgency and a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's posts constitute actionable defamation or are protected as survivor speech in the context of gender-based violence.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicant failed to disclose that he had known about the respondent's posts since 2017, thereby misleading the court on urgency. The posts had been in the public domain for years, and the applicant did not demonstrate a well-grounded apprehension of irreparable harm, as his reputation had not suffered actual damage and he had already been suspended due to the allegations. The respondent's speech was found to be reasonable and protected in the context of South Africa's endemic rape culture and the need for survivor advocacy. The applicant has a satisfactory alternative remedy in a defamation action, and the balance of convenience does not favour granting the interdict. The application...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; rule nisi discharged; costs awarded against applicant on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The rule nisi is discharged.
  • The application is dismissed with costs on an attorney and client scale.