Mabote v Fundudzi Media Proprietary Limited t/a Sunday World (20/33468) [2020] ZAGPJHC 287 (13 November 2020)

Mabote v Fundudzi Media Proprietary Limited t/a Sunday World (20/33468) [2020] ZAGPJHC 287 (13 November 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the legal standard for urgency required by Rule 6(12). The evidence presented did not demonstrate that she would be unable to obtain substantial redress in the ordinary course, nor did it establish irreparable harm. The applicant's income-generating activities continued after the publication, and the alleged defamatory comments were already in the public domain through other media outlets. The court held that the appropriate forum for seeking an apology from a media defendant is the Press Council, which has the jurisdiction and expedited procedures for such relief. South African law does not recognise a court-ordered apology as a remedy...

Citation
[2020] ZAGPJHC 287
Parties
Applicant: Kefilwe Faith Mabote; Respondent: Fundudzi Media Proprietary Limited t/a Sunday World
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 November 2020
Case Number
20/33468
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Struck From the Roll
Outcome
Application struck off the roll with costs.
Judges
I Opperman
Legal Topics
Urgent Interdict, Defamation, Media Law, Press Council Remedy, Apology Order, Rule 6 12
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Urgent Interdict Defamation Media Law Press Council Remedy Apology Order Rule 6 12

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 16 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kefilwe Faith Mabote

Applicant

Fundudzi Media Proprietary Limited t/a Sunday World

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Relief Struck From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant established sufficient urgency for the relief sought.
  2. 2 Whether a media defendant can be ordered by a court to publish an apology for alleged defamation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has an adequate alternative remedy through the Press Council.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to meet the legal standard for urgency required by Rule 6(12). The evidence presented did not demonstrate that she would be unable to obtain substantial redress in the ordinary course, nor did it establish irreparable harm. The applicant's income-generating activities continued after the publication, and the alleged defamatory comments were already in the public domain through other media outlets. The court held that the appropriate forum for seeking an apology from a media defendant is the Press Council, which has the jurisdiction and expedited procedures for such relief. South African law does not recognise a court-ordered apology as a remedy...

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The matter is struck off the roll with costs.