Liberty Group Limited v Chonco and Another (7449/24P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 42 (25 April 2025)

Liberty Group Limited v Chonco and Another (7449/24P) [2025] ZAKZPHC 42 (25 April 2025)

The respondents published defamatory statements about the applicant and its employees on social media and to third parties, including allegations of corruption, criminality, and abuse. The respondents conceded the defamatory nature of the publications but relied on the defences of truth and public benefit, and fair comment. The court found that the respondents failed to substantiate the truth of their allegations or demonstrate that the publications were for public benefit. The language used was grave, insulting, and not rationally related to any alleged unfair labour practices. The respondents also failed to distinguish fact from comment, and did not provide a factual foundation for...

Citation
[2025] ZAKZPHC 42
Parties
Applicant: Liberty Group Limited; Respondent: Siyabonga Chonco; Respondent: Siyakutanda Mafuna
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 April 2025
Case Number
7449/24P
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application
Outcome
Application granted. Final interdict issued against respondents. Costs awarded to applicant on scale B.
Judges
Mathenjwa
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Fair Comment, Truth and Public Benefit, Unlawful Publication, Freedom of Expression
Civil Procedure Labour Law Defamation Final Interdict Fair Comment Truth and Public Benefit Unlawful Publication 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Liberty Group Limited

Applicant

Siyabonga Chonco

Respondent

Siyakutanda Mafuna

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents proved that the published statements were true and for public benefit, or constitute fair comment.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant satisfied the requirements for a final interdict against the respondents.

Ratio Decidendi

The respondents published defamatory statements about the applicant and its employees on social media and to third parties, including allegations of corruption, criminality, and abuse. The respondents conceded the defamatory nature of the publications but relied on the defences of truth and public benefit, and fair comment. The court found that the respondents failed to substantiate the truth of their allegations or demonstrate that the publications were for public benefit. The language used was grave, insulting, and not rationally related to any alleged unfair labour practices. The respondents also failed to distinguish fact from comment, and did not provide a factual foundation for...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Final interdict issued against respondents. Costs awarded to applicant on scale B.

Orders

  • The respondents are interdicted from publishing or distributing to any third party any defamatory and false statements concerning the applicant, its employees, agents, or associates, including Standard Bank and its employees or representatives.
  • The respondents are interdicted from publishing or distributing on any social media or online platforms, including but not limited to Facebook, X (Twitter), LinkedIn, WhatsApp and Instagram, any defamatory or false statements or allegations concerning the applicant, its employees, agents, or associates, including...