Itumele Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd t/a Interstate Bus Lines v Msabe (6450/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 392 (12 October 2023)

Itumele Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd t/a Interstate Bus Lines v Msabe (6450/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 392 (12 October 2023)

The court found that the respondent's statements on social media were defamatory, false, and unjustified. The respondent did not provide evidence or argument to support the truth of his allegations, nor did he justify them as being in the public interest. The applicant demonstrated that the statements, including...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 392
Parties
Applicant: Itumele Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd t/a Interstate Bus Lines; Respondent: Zwelakhe Joseph Msabe
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 October 2023
Case Number
6450/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Before the High Court
Outcome
Final interdict granted against the respondent; application to strike out dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
Berry, AJ
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Constitutional Rights, Social Media Publication
Civil Procedure Delict Constitutional Law Defamation Final Interdict Freedom of Expression Constitutional Rights Social Media Publication

Source-derived case record

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 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Itumele Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd t/a Interstate Bus Lines

Applicant

Zwelakhe Joseph Msabe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's social media statements about the applicant are defamatory and false.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondent from publishing defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's right to freedom of expression justifies the publication of the statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's statements on social media were defamatory, false, and unjustified. The respondent did not provide evidence or argument to support the truth of his allegations, nor did he justify them as being in the public interest. The applicant demonstrated that the statements, including those regarding bus safety and alleged corruption, were false and damaging to its reputation. The respondent's reliance on freedom of expression was rejected, as this right does not protect the publication of false and defamatory statements. The persistent publication of such statements, even after service of the application, warranted a final interdict. The court declined to...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted against the respondent; application to strike out dismissed; costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is ordered to remove all social media posts as reflected in Annexures D1 to D21, E1 to E27, and Y1 to Y14 within 7 days from service of this order.
  • The respondent is interdicted from posting, spreading, publishing, or making known to the public or any of the applicant's clients, any comment or information aimed at defaming or damaging the applicant's reputation on any social media platform or newspaper, including Facebook, WhatsApp, Telegram, Twitter,...