Jacobs v Nkomo and Another (2023/019518) [2025] ZAGPJHC 285 (14 March 2025)

Jacobs v Nkomo and Another (2023/019518) [2025] ZAGPJHC 285 (14 March 2025)

The court found that the first respondent's statements were defamatory, wrongful, and intentional. The allegations of corruption, maladministration, and improper appointments were unsubstantiated and had been investigated and found to be baseless. The first respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving truth and public interest. The applicant demonstrated harm to his reputation and dignity, warranting declaratory and interdictory relief. The court held that compensatory relief such as retraction and apology could not be granted on motion and must be referred to oral evidence. Condonation for the late delivery of the answering affidavit was granted in the interests of fairness and...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 285
Parties
Applicant: Wesley Jacobs; Respondent: Aaron Matoelzi Nkomo; Respondent: Member of the Executive Council for Infrastructure Development, Gauteng
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 2025
Case Number
2023/019518
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion Proceedings
Outcome
Declaratory and interdictory relief granted in favour of the applicant; compensatory relief (retraction and apology) referred to oral evidence; costs to stand over for later determination; condonation for late answering affidavit granted.
Judges
Cornelissen
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Declaratory Relief, Protected Disclosures Act, Condonation, Truth and Public Interest Defence
Delict Civil Procedure Administrative Law Defamation Interdict Declaratory Relief Protected Disclosures Act Condonation +1 more

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Wesley Jacobs

Applicant

Aaron Matoelzi Nkomo

Respondent

Member of the Executive Council for Infrastructure Development, Gauteng

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment After Opposed Motion Proceedings

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the first respondent about the applicant are defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the first respondent's statements are wrongful and intentional.
  3. 3 Whether the first respondent can rely on the defence of truth and public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the first respondent's statements were defamatory, wrongful, and intentional. The allegations of corruption, maladministration, and improper appointments were unsubstantiated and had been investigated and found to be baseless. The first respondent failed to discharge the onus of proving truth and public interest. The applicant demonstrated harm to his reputation and dignity, warranting declaratory and interdictory relief. The court held that compensatory relief such as retraction and apology could not be granted on motion and must be referred to oral evidence. Condonation for the late delivery of the answering affidavit was granted in the interests of fairness and...

Court Disposition

Declaratory and interdictory relief granted in favour of the applicant; compensatory relief (retraction and apology) referred to oral evidence; costs to stand over for later determination; condonation for late answering affidavit granted.

Orders

  • The allegations concerning the applicant, as contained in the specified publications and statements, are declared defamatory and unlawful.
  • The first respondent is interdicted from publishing any statement implying the applicant is involved in improper appointments, tailor-made posts, maladministration, corruption, violation of policy, harassment, intimidation, victimisation, misappropriation, exploitation, or malfeasance at the Department.