Garbade v Jan Van Niekerk (4987/2016) [2018] ZAKZDHC 7 (28 March 2018)

Garbade v Jan Van Niekerk (4987/2016) [2018] ZAKZDHC 7 (28 March 2018)

The court found that the respondent's Facebook post was defamatory and constituted unlawful interference with the applicant's business. The respondent failed to prove the truth of her allegations or that her conduct was justified by public interest or fair comment. The court held that there was no justification for the publication of the statements and that the applicant was entitled to an interdict restraining the respondent from further unlawful interference and defamatory conduct. However, the court limited the scope of the order to only those parts of the rule nisi that were proved, excluding references to intimidation or harassment not supported by evidence.

Citation
[2018] ZAKZDHC 7
Parties
Applicant: Heidi Garbade; Respondent: Tasmyn-Jain van Niekerk
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2018
Case Number
4987/2016
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Confirmation of Rule Nisi
Outcome
The application for a final interdict was granted in part; the respondent was interdicted from unlawfully interfering with the applicant's business and casting aspersions on her character and business reputation. Costs were awarded to the applicant.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel
Legal Topics
Interdict, Defamation, Unlawful Interference With Business, Social Media Publication
Civil Procedure Delict Interdict Defamation Unlawful Interference With Business 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 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heidi Garbade

Applicant

Tasmyn-Jain van Niekerk

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Opposed Motion for Confirmation of Rule Nisi

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's Facebook post constituted defamation against the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent unlawfully interfered with the applicant's business.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondent from further defamatory conduct.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's Facebook post was defamatory and constituted unlawful interference with the applicant's business. The respondent failed to prove the truth of her allegations or that her conduct was justified by public interest or fair comment. The court held that there was no justification for the publication of the statements and that the applicant was entitled to an interdict restraining the respondent from further unlawful interference and defamatory conduct. However, the court limited the scope of the order to only those parts of the rule nisi that were proved, excluding references to intimidation or harassment not supported by evidence.

Court Disposition

The application for a final interdict was granted in part; the respondent was interdicted from unlawfully interfering with the applicant's business and casting aspersions on her character and business reputation. Costs were awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from unlawfully interfering with the applicant’s business.
  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from unlawfully casting aspersions on the applicant’s character, personality and business reputation.