Goberdan and Others v Sitshetshe and Others (1587/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 75 (10 August 2021)

Goberdan and Others v Sitshetshe and Others (1587/2020) [2021] ZAECGHC 75 (10 August 2021)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish entitlement to an interdict restraining the respondents from making or publishing the statements in question. The respondents succeeded in proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defence of truth and public interest was available to them. The statements were made in the context of workplace grievances, in response to an invitation from the National Director of Public Prosecutions to report racism and nepotism, and were relevant to the occasion. The respondents substantiated their assertions with examples and were expressing genuine concerns about their experiences. The applicants did not demonstrate that the respondents...

Citation
[2021] ZAECGHC 75
Parties
Applicant: Indhrambal Goberdan; Applicant: Brenhan Sam; Applicant: Anthony Bean; Applicant: Sarika Chetty; Applicant: Althea Rhodes; Respondent: Siyabulela Sitshetshe; Respondent: Khotso Seithleko; Respondent: Nomsa Mgxwati; Respondent: Asanda Nolusu; Respondent: Zukiswa Zokufa; Respondent: National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers; Respondent: National Director of Public Prosecutions
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 August 2021
Case Number
1587/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application for Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Beshe
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Workplace Grievances, Trade Union Activity
Delict Labour Law Civil Procedure Defamation Interdict Freedom of Expression Workplace Grievances Trade Union Activity

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 9 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Indhrambal Goberdan

Applicant

Brenhan Sam

Applicant

Anthony Bean

Applicant

Sarika Chetty

Applicant

Althea Rhodes

Applicant

Siyabulela Sitshetshe

Respondent

Khotso Seithleko

Respondent

Nomsa Mgxwati

Respondent

Asanda Nolusu

Respondent

Zukiswa Zokufa

Respondent

National Union of Public Service and Allied Workers

Respondent

National Director of Public Prosecutions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Application for Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents published defamatory statements about the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the statements made by the respondents are protected by the defence of truth and public interest.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an interdict restraining the respondents from making or publishing defamatory statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish entitlement to an interdict restraining the respondents from making or publishing the statements in question. The respondents succeeded in proving, on a balance of probabilities, that the defence of truth and public interest was available to them. The statements were made in the context of workplace grievances, in response to an invitation from the National Director of Public Prosecutions to report racism and nepotism, and were relevant to the occasion. The respondents substantiated their assertions with examples and were expressing genuine concerns about their experiences. The applicants did not demonstrate that the respondents...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.