Daily Maverick (PTY) Ltd and Another v Modiba (33428/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 582 (12 August 2022)

Daily Maverick (PTY) Ltd and Another v Modiba (33428/2020) [2022] ZAGPJHC 582 (12 August 2022)

The court found that the respondent's statements were clearly defamatory, alleging unethical conduct, racism, and fabrication of news by the applicants. These statements were widely disseminated and believed by influential parties, causing serious reputational harm. The respondent was aware of the proceedings but...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 582
Parties
Applicant: Daily Maverick (PTY) Limited; Applicant: Branislav Brkic; Respondent: Modibe Julius Modiba
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 August 2022
Case Number
33428/2020
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment in Defamation Action
Outcome
Default judgment granted in favour of the applicants. The respondent is ordered to pay R100,000 in damages, remove defamatory statements, issue a retraction, and pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Matojane
Legal Topics
Defamation, General Damages, Social Media Liability, Default Judgment, Publication of False Statements
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation General Damages Social Media Liability Default Judgment Publication of False Statements

Source-derived case record

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 4 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daily Maverick (PTY) Limited

Applicant

Branislav Brkic

Applicant

Modibe Julius Modiba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment in Defamation Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's published statements about the applicants are defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to damages and other relief for defamation.
  3. 3 What quantum of damages is appropriate in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's statements were clearly defamatory, alleging unethical conduct, racism, and fabrication of news by the applicants. These statements were widely disseminated and believed by influential parties, causing serious reputational harm. The respondent was aware of the proceedings but chose not to defend or retract his statements, instead escalating his attacks. The applicants proved the elements of defamation, and the respondent's statements are deemed untrue and malicious. The court considered the applicants' standing, the extent and impact of the publication, and the respondent's conduct. The applicants were entitled to damages, removal of the defamatory...

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted in favour of the applicants. The respondent is ordered to pay R100,000 in damages, remove defamatory statements, issue a retraction, and pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The statements made and published by the respondent, as detailed in paragraph 6, are declared defamatory and unlawful.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the sum of R100,000 to the first applicant, with interest at the prescribed rate from the date of judgment to the date of payment.