Le Grellier and Another v Kamionsky and Another (2023-058876) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1286 (13 November 2023)

Le Grellier and Another v Kamionsky and Another (2023-058876) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1286 (13 November 2023)

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the strict requirements for ex parte interim relief, particularly in defamation matters where prior restraints on expression are rarely justified. The applicants did not exclude possible defences available to the respondent, such as truth, public interest, and fair comment, nor did they establish irreparable harm that would justify dispensing with notice. The respondent had an arguable case that his publications were either true or fair comment on matters of public interest, and the applicants misrepresented the outcome of prior proceedings as exonerating them. The court held that the interim order was improperly granted and must be set...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1286
Parties
Applicant: Gail Le Grellier; Applicant: Jabulane Francisco Khoza; Respondent: Tony Kamionsky; Respondent: Dynamique Commission of Inquiry
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 November 2023
Case Number
2023-058876
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Interim Ex Parte Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)
Outcome
Application for interim relief dismissed; interim order discharged; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Prior Restraint, Ex Parte Interdict, Fair Comment, Public Interest Defence
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Delict Defamation Freedom of Expression Prior Restraint Ex Parte Interdict Fair Comment +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 6 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gail Le Grellier

Applicant

Jabulane Francisco Khoza

Applicant

Tony Kamionsky

Respondent

Dynamique Commission of Inquiry

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Reconsideration of Interim Ex Parte Order Under Rule 6(12)(c)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants were entitled to an ex parte interim order restraining the respondents from publishing allegedly defamatory material.
  2. 2 Whether prior restraints on freedom of expression should be granted ex parte in defamation matters.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants excluded all possible defences available to the respondent on the material facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to meet the strict requirements for ex parte interim relief, particularly in defamation matters where prior restraints on expression are rarely justified. The applicants did not exclude possible defences available to the respondent, such as truth, public interest, and fair comment, nor did they establish irreparable harm that would justify dispensing with notice. The respondent had an arguable case that his publications were either true or fair comment on matters of public interest, and the applicants misrepresented the outcome of prior proceedings as exonerating them. The court held that the interim order was improperly granted and must be set...

Court Disposition

Application for interim relief dismissed; interim order discharged; costs awarded against applicants on attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The order of Sentyatsi J dated 20 June 2023 is reconsidered and discharged under Uniform Rule 6 (12) (c).
  • Part A of the application is dismissed.