Malema v Rawula (139/2020) [2021] ZASCA 88 (23 June 2021)

Malema v Rawula (139/2020) [2021] ZASCA 88 (23 June 2021)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to make out a case for a final interdict or declaratory relief. The respondent, as a senior member of the EFF, laid a sustainable factual foundation for the defence of truth and public interest, supported by evidence of insider knowledge and corroborating affidavits. The statements regarding receipt of VBS funds and lack of financial accountability were not shown to be patently false or implausible on the papers. The appellant did not produce evidence to rebut the allegations or demonstrate that the respondent's version was untenable. Furthermore, the risk of future publication was not established, as the Facebook post had already...

Citation
[2021] ZASCA 88
Parties
Appellant: Julius Sello Malema; Respondent: Thembinkosi Rawula
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 June 2021
Case Number
139/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth
Outcome
Appeal dismissed.
Judges
Petse, Dambuza, Schippers, Ledwaba, Rogers
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Public Interest Defence, Motion Proceedings, Damages for Defamation
Civil Procedure Delict Constitutional Law Defamation Final Interdict Freedom of Expression Public Interest Defence Motion Proceedings +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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julius Sello Malema

Appellant

Thembinkosi Rawula

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Eastern Cape Division of the High Court, Port Elizabeth

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a defamation claim may be brought by way of application for a final interdict and damages.
  2. 2 Whether the statements published by the respondent were defamatory and unlawful.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established a sustainable defence of truth and public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the appellant failed to make out a case for a final interdict or declaratory relief. The respondent, as a senior member of the EFF, laid a sustainable factual foundation for the defence of truth and public interest, supported by evidence of insider knowledge and corroborating affidavits. The statements regarding receipt of VBS funds and lack of financial accountability were not shown to be patently false or implausible on the papers. The appellant did not produce evidence to rebut the allegations or demonstrate that the respondent's version was untenable. Furthermore, the risk of future publication was not established, as the Facebook post had already...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed.