Godongwana v Mdwaba (2023-125276) [2024] ZAGPJHC 46 (26 January 2024)

Godongwana v Mdwaba (2023-125276) [2024] ZAGPJHC 46 (26 January 2024)

The court found that the respondent's statements, made in various media interviews, were defamatory and false, as they accused the applicant of soliciting a bribe without any substantiated evidence. The respondent's reliance on hearsay from unnamed sources did not constitute a valid defence of truth or fair comment. The respondent failed to verify the information before publication, continued to repeat the allegations after being put on notice, and opposed the matter to the end, demonstrating animus iniurandi. The applicant established a clear right to protect his dignity and reputation, ongoing harm, and the absence of alternative remedies. The requirements for a final interdict were...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 46
Parties
Applicant: Enoch Godongwana; Respondent: Mthunzi Perry-Mason Mdwaba
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 January 2024
Case Number
2023-125276
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application
Outcome
The application succeeded. The respondent's statements were declared defamatory and false, publication was declared unlawful, and a final interdict was granted. Damages, apology, and retraction were referred to oral evidence. Costs awarded on attorney and client scale, including two counsel.
Judges
Dosio
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Damages Quantification, Constitutional Rights, Retraction and Apology
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Final Interdict Damages Quantification Constitutional Rights Retraction and Apology

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 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Enoch Godongwana

Applicant

Mthunzi Perry-Mason Mdwaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Urgent Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's statements about the applicant were defamatory and false.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's publication of the statements was unlawful and actionable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict restraining further publication of the defamatory statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's statements, made in various media interviews, were defamatory and false, as they accused the applicant of soliciting a bribe without any substantiated evidence. The respondent's reliance on hearsay from unnamed sources did not constitute a valid defence of truth or fair comment. The respondent failed to verify the information before publication, continued to repeat the allegations after being put on notice, and opposed the matter to the end, demonstrating animus iniurandi. The applicant established a clear right to protect his dignity and reputation, ongoing harm, and the absence of alternative remedies. The requirements for a final interdict were...

Court Disposition

The application succeeded. The respondent's statements were declared defamatory and false, publication was declared unlawful, and a final interdict was granted. Damages, apology, and retraction were referred to oral evidence. Costs awarded on attorney and client scale, including two counsel.

Orders

  • The applicant's non-compliance with the Rules relating to service and time periods is condoned; the application is heard on an urgent basis.
  • It is declared that the allegations made about the applicant, specifically that he was party to the solicitation of a bribe from the respondent or his company, are defamatory and false.