Khunou v Makgatlha and Another (UM121/2021) [2021] ZANWHC 35 (24 June 2021)

Khunou v Makgatlha and Another (UM121/2021) [2021] ZANWHC 35 (24 June 2021)

The court found that the statement posted by the first respondent on Facebook was a truthful account of the pending domestic violence application between the parties. Both parties admitted that allegations of sexual harassment were pending against the applicant. The statement did not undermine or impair the applicant’s good name, as it reflected the factual status of the proceedings. The applicant failed to provide evidence that the motion of no confidence was a result of the statement, and there was no proof of prejudice or inability to perform his duties. The requirements for urgency were not met, and the defence of truth succeeded. Consequently, the statement was not defamatory, and...

Citation
[2021] ZANWHC 35
Parties
Applicant: Mpho Elias Khunou; Respondent: Ella Sina Makgatlha; Respondent: Mr Gomolemo Kekana
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 June 2021
Case Number
UM121/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Interdict
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs against the applicant.
Judges
DJAJE
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Domestic Violence Act, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Interdict Domestic Violence Act Freedom of Expression

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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mpho Elias Khunou

Applicant

Ella Sina Makgatlha

Respondent

Mr Gomolemo Kekana

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Application for Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement posted by the first respondent on Facebook is defamatory against the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a prohibitory interdict restraining the first respondent from publishing alleged defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether the application meets the requirements for urgency.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statement posted by the first respondent on Facebook was a truthful account of the pending domestic violence application between the parties. Both parties admitted that allegations of sexual harassment were pending against the applicant. The statement did not undermine or impair the applicant’s good name, as it reflected the factual status of the proceedings. The applicant failed to provide evidence that the motion of no confidence was a result of the statement, and there was no proof of prejudice or inability to perform his duties. The requirements for urgency were not met, and the defence of truth succeeded. Consequently, the statement was not defamatory, and...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs against the applicant.

Orders

  • The application against the first respondent is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay costs of the first respondent, including the costs of 17 June 2021.