Kgamanyane v Molema (077356/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1050 (15 August 2023)

Kgamanyane v Molema (077356/2023) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1050 (15 August 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to act with the required urgency in seeking interdictory relief. Despite claiming ongoing harm from defamatory social media posts, the applicants delayed requesting removal of the posts and only approached their attorneys after the refund was processed. The court held that in the context of social media, prompt action is essential, and the applicants' delay undermined their claim of urgency. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the harm was ongoing or that the respondents intended to continue making defamatory allegations. As a result, the application was struck from the roll for want of urgency, with costs awarded against the...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1050
Parties
Applicant: Lerato Kgamanyane; Respondent: Lorato Molema
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 August 2023
Case Number
077356/2023
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for want of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicants.
Judges
Yacoob
Legal Topics
Interdictory Relief, Defamation, Urgency, Social Media Publication
Civil Procedure Delict Interdictory Relief Defamation Urgency Social Media Publication

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lerato Kgamanyane

Applicant

Lorato Molema

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application for urgent interdictory relief is justified under the circumstances.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants acted with sufficient urgency in seeking relief against alleged defamatory social media posts.
  3. 3 Whether the harm alleged by the applicants is ongoing and warrants urgent intervention.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to act with the required urgency in seeking interdictory relief. Despite claiming ongoing harm from defamatory social media posts, the applicants delayed requesting removal of the posts and only approached their attorneys after the refund was processed. The court held that in the context of social media, prompt action is essential, and the applicants' delay undermined their claim of urgency. Furthermore, there was insufficient evidence that the harm was ongoing or that the respondents intended to continue making defamatory allegations. As a result, the application was struck from the roll for want of urgency, with costs awarded against the...

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for want of urgency, with costs awarded against the applicants.

Orders

  • The application is struck from the roll for want of urgency.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the costs of the application.