Doves Group Proprietary Limited v Rousseau and Another (68975/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 98 (19 March 2020)

Doves Group Proprietary Limited v Rousseau and Another (68975/2017) [2020] ZAGPPHC 98 (19 March 2020)

The court found that the respondents admitted to making the social media posts about the applicant and failed to provide substantive evidence to dispute the applicant's claims or to show that the statements were fair comment. The respondents' answering affidavit amounted to a bare denial and did not create a genuine dispute of fact requiring referral to oral evidence. The applicant established a clear right to protect its reputation, demonstrated actual or apprehended injury, and showed that damages would not provide adequate protection against ongoing or future harm. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied, and there was no alternative remedy available. The balance of...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 98
Parties
Applicant: Doves Group Proprietary Limited; Respondent: Johan Daniel Etzart Rousseau; Respondent: Funeral Industry Reformed Association
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 March 2020
Case Number
68975/2017
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Interlocutory Disputes and Answering Affidavits
Outcome
Application granted. The respondents are interdicted and restrained from posting information about the applicant on social media and must remove existing posts. Costs awarded on attorney and own client scale.
Judges
Sardiwalla
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Defamation, Social Media Conduct, Irreparable Harm, Alternative Remedy
Civil Procedure Delict Final Interdict Defamation Social Media Conduct Irreparable Harm Alternative Remedy

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 5 Authorities cited 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Doves Group Proprietary Limited

Applicant

Johan Daniel Etzart Rousseau

Respondent

Funeral Industry Reformed Association

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application After Interlocutory Disputes and Answering Affidavits

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents should be interdicted from posting information about the applicant on social media.
  2. 2 Whether there is a material dispute of fact requiring referral to oral evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has established the requirements for a final interdict, including absence of alternative remedy.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents admitted to making the social media posts about the applicant and failed to provide substantive evidence to dispute the applicant's claims or to show that the statements were fair comment. The respondents' answering affidavit amounted to a bare denial and did not create a genuine dispute of fact requiring referral to oral evidence. The applicant established a clear right to protect its reputation, demonstrated actual or apprehended injury, and showed that damages would not provide adequate protection against ongoing or future harm. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied, and there was no alternative remedy available. The balance of...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondents are interdicted and restrained from posting information about the applicant on social media and must remove existing posts. Costs awarded on attorney and own client scale.

Orders

  • The First and Second Respondents are interdicted and restrained from posting any information on social media pertaining to the applicant.
  • The First and Second Respondents are directed to remove the postings made by the First Respondent on social media or any other social media site which refers to the applicant.