Evrigard (Pty) Ltd and Another v Select PPE (Pty) Ltd (44317/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 374; 2023 BIP 13 (GJ) (25 April 2023)

Evrigard (Pty) Ltd and Another v Select PPE (Pty) Ltd (44317/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 374; 2023 BIP 13 (GJ) (25 April 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the statements made by the respondent were defamatory or constituted injurious falsehoods in a manner justifying declaratory or interdictory relief. The chosen procedure of motion proceedings was inappropriate for the relief sought, as the issues of liability and quantum are inextricably linked and cannot be decided piecemeal. The applicants did not demonstrate why damages would not be an adequate alternative remedy, and there was no reasonable apprehension of future harm. The court concluded that neither declaratory nor interdictory relief was warranted and dismissed the application.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 374
Parties
Applicant: Evrigard (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Rondo (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Select PPE (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2023
Case Number
44317/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Strijdom
Legal Topics
Defamation, Injurious Falsehood, Interdictory Relief, Declaratory Relief, Intellectual Property Infringement, Passing Off
Delict Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Defamation Injurious Falsehood Interdictory Relief Declaratory Relief Intellectual Property Infringement +1 more

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Evrigard (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Rondo (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Select PPE (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Judgment on Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the respondent are defamatory of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants have established a case for interdictory and declaratory relief based on defamation and injurious falsehood.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defences, including privilege, are valid.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish that the statements made by the respondent were defamatory or constituted injurious falsehoods in a manner justifying declaratory or interdictory relief. The chosen procedure of motion proceedings was inappropriate for the relief sought, as the issues of liability and quantum are inextricably linked and cannot be decided piecemeal. The applicants did not demonstrate why damages would not be an adequate alternative remedy, and there was no reasonable apprehension of future harm. The court concluded that neither declaratory nor interdictory relief was warranted and dismissed the application.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.