IRD Global Limited v The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (504/2023) [2024] ZASCA 109; 2025 (1) SA 117 (SCA) (4 July 2024)

IRD Global Limited v The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria (504/2023) [2024] ZASCA 109; 2025 (1) SA 117 (SCA) (4 July 2024)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Gauteng Division of the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim relief. Both parties are peregrini with no real connection to South Africa, and the cause of action arose in Pakistan. The mere fact that the appellant's attorney accessed and downloaded the report in Johannesburg is insufficient to establish jurisdiction, as internet publication's global reach cannot justify multiple actions in jurisdictions with no substantive connection to the dispute. The requirements for interim interdictory relief were not met, as the harm occurred years earlier and the respondent had put up a valid defence to the defamation...

Citation
[2024] ZASCA 109
Parties
Appellant: IRD Global Limited; Respondent: The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 July 2024
Case Number
504/2023
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Mocumie, Schippers, Koen, Dawood, Baartman
Legal Topics
Jurisdiction, Defamation on Internet, Interim Interdict, Security for Costs
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Jurisdiction Defamation on Internet Interim Interdict Security for Costs

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 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

IRD Global Limited

Appellant

The Global Fund to fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim relief.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for interim interdictory relief were satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the High Court correctly ordered additional security for costs.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the Gauteng Division of the High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the application for interim relief. Both parties are peregrini with no real connection to South Africa, and the cause of action arose in Pakistan. The mere fact that the appellant's attorney accessed and downloaded the report in Johannesburg is insufficient to establish jurisdiction, as internet publication's global reach cannot justify multiple actions in jurisdictions with no substantive connection to the dispute. The requirements for interim interdictory relief were not met, as the harm occurred years earlier and the respondent had put up a valid defence to the defamation...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel, where so employed.
  • The order for additional security for costs stands as determined by the Taxing Master.