Mabuza v Letwaba (5068/2021) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 24 (12 April 2023)

Mabuza v Letwaba (5068/2021) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 24 (12 April 2023)

The court found that the respondent made statements about the applicant that were false, highly defamatory, and unsubstantiated by any evidence. These statements were published on national broadcasters and in print, intentionally reaching third parties and injuring the applicant's reputation. The respondent failed to provide any proof to support the allegations and did not rebut the presumptions of intent and unlawfulness. The defences of truth, public interest, and fair comment were rejected, as the respondent did not establish the truth of the statements or that they were honest opinions based on true facts. The points in limine regarding the commissioning of the affidavit and...

Citation
[2023] ZAMPMBHC 24
Parties
Applicant: David Dabede Mabuza; Respondent: Joel Pompies Letwaba
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 April 2023
Case Number
5068/2021
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Merits After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application granted: interdict, public apology, and costs awarded to applicant.
Judges
Mashile
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Public Apology, Commissioning of Affidavit, Jurisdiction, Fair Comment
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Interdict Public Apology Commissioning of Affidavit Jurisdiction Fair Comment

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

David Dabede Mabuza

Applicant

Joel Pompies Letwaba

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Judgment on Merits After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Should the respondent's late filing of his answering affidavit be condoned.
  2. 2 Is an affidavit validly commissioned if sworn at a place other than the commissioner's ordinary address.
  3. 3 Does this court have jurisdiction to adjudicate the application.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent made statements about the applicant that were false, highly defamatory, and unsubstantiated by any evidence. These statements were published on national broadcasters and in print, intentionally reaching third parties and injuring the applicant's reputation. The respondent failed to provide any proof to support the allegations and did not rebut the presumptions of intent and unlawfulness. The defences of truth, public interest, and fair comment were rejected, as the respondent did not establish the truth of the statements or that they were honest opinions based on true facts. The points in limine regarding the commissioning of the affidavit and...

Court Disposition

Application granted: interdict, public apology, and costs awarded to applicant.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from making any oral or written statements and/or stating publicly that the applicant was responsible for ordering the killing of people while Premier of Mpumalanga; is the cause of problems in the country and in the African National Congress; is responsible for the...
  • The respondent is directed to issue a public apology to the applicant in person, to be broadcast on Newzroom Afrika and eNCA and published in the Citizen newspaper.