Malema v Rawula (1204/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 83 (12 November 2019)

Malema v Rawula (1204/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 83 (12 November 2019)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish entitlement to a final interdict and damages via motion proceedings. The respondent, though a layperson, raised defences of truth, public interest, fair comment, and privilege, and indicated that supporting evidence could be produced if given access to relevant records and witnesses. The court held that there was a material dispute of fact which could not be resolved on the papers, and that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of an action for damages. Furthermore, the allegedly defamatory Facebook post had already been removed prior to the institution of proceedings, negating the need for an interdict. The...

Citation
[2019] ZAECPEHC 83
Parties
Applicant: Julius Sello Malema; Respondent: Thembinkosi Rawula
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 November 2019
Case Number
1204/2019
Procedural Posture
Final Interdict Application / Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed. No order as to costs.
Judges
N.J. Mullins
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Actio Iniuriarum, Public Interest Defence, Fair Comment
Civil Procedure Delict Constitutional Law Defamation Final Interdict Freedom of Expression Actio Iniuriarum Public Interest Defence +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 5 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Sello Malema

Applicant

Thembinkosi Rawula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Interdict Application / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the respondent on Facebook are defamatory of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict and damages for defamation via motion proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has established a sustainable defence such as truth, public interest, or fair comment.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish entitlement to a final interdict and damages via motion proceedings. The respondent, though a layperson, raised defences of truth, public interest, fair comment, and privilege, and indicated that supporting evidence could be produced if given access to relevant records and witnesses. The court held that there was a material dispute of fact which could not be resolved on the papers, and that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of an action for damages. Furthermore, the allegedly defamatory Facebook post had already been removed prior to the institution of proceedings, negating the need for an interdict. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. No order as to costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • There will be no order as to costs.