Fichardt v Potgieter and Others (797/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 99 (7 June 2018)

Fichardt v Potgieter and Others (797/2018) [2018] ZAFSHC 99 (7 June 2018)

The court found that the defamatory statements were published on Facebook pages accessible in the Free State, thus establishing jurisdiction. The words used by the respondents were reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning to the reasonable reader. Although the applicant owed money to the first respondent and others, the respondents failed to provide the full context, omitting mention of the legal proceedings and default judgment. The postings were made with the intention of coercing payment rather than serving the public interest. The respondents did not discharge the onus of proving truth or public interest. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to confirmation of the...

Citation
[2018] ZAFSHC 99
Parties
Applicant: Neil Fichardt; Respondent: Phillip Potgieter; Respondent: Renier Fourie; Respondent: Walter Gilfillan; Respondent: Ann Strydom
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 June 2018
Case Number
797/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date of Interim Interdict; Confirmation of Interim Order
Outcome
Application granted in part; paragraph 3.2 of the interim order confirmed against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents; costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
P. J. Loubser
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interim Interdict, Social Media Publication
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Interim Interdict Social Media Publication

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

Parties

Neil Fichardt

Applicant

Phillip Potgieter

Respondent

Renier Fourie

Respondent

Walter Gilfillan

Respondent

Ann Strydom

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date of Interim Interdict; Confirmation of Interim Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the court has jurisdiction over the alleged defamatory publications made on social media.
  2. 2 Whether the statements made by the respondents on Facebook constitute defamation against the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents have succeeded in establishing a defence of truth or public interest to dispel wrongfulness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defamatory statements were published on Facebook pages accessible in the Free State, thus establishing jurisdiction. The words used by the respondents were reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning to the reasonable reader. Although the applicant owed money to the first respondent and others, the respondents failed to provide the full context, omitting mention of the legal proceedings and default judgment. The postings were made with the intention of coercing payment rather than serving the public interest. The respondents did not discharge the onus of proving truth or public interest. Consequently, the applicant was entitled to confirmation of the...

Court Disposition

Application granted in part; paragraph 3.2 of the interim order confirmed against the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • Paragraph 3.2 of the interim order dated 16 February 2018 is made a final order of court as concerns the 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents.
  • The 1st, 2nd, and 3rd respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.