Mantashe v Zuma (2025/094050) [2025] ZAGPJHC 697 (16 July 2025)

Mantashe v Zuma (2025/094050) [2025] ZAGPJHC 697 (16 July 2025)

The court found that the respondent's statements on TikTok and other social media platforms, alleging that the applicant received R40 million from ERP Mine intended for former mineworkers, were objectively defamatory. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his claims and did not report the matter to the police. The defence of truth and public benefit was unavailing, as the respondent relied on hearsay and unsupported affidavits. The statements imputed dishonesty and lack of integrity to the applicant, a government minister, and were widely disseminated, causing ongoing harm to his reputation and dignity. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 697
Parties
Applicant: Gwede Samson Mantashe; Respondent: Zakhele Zuma
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
16 July 2025
Case Number
2025/094050
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Relief and Referral to Oral Evidence on Quantum
Outcome
Declaratory and interdictory relief granted; respondent found liable for damages; quantum and retraction referred to oral evidence; costs reserved.
Judges
M Van Nieuwenhuizen
Legal Topics
Defamation, Social Media Publication, Final Interdict, Constitutional Dignity, Damages Quantification
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Social Media Publication Final Interdict Constitutional Dignity Damages Quantification

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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 9
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Gwede Samson Mantashe

Applicant

Zakhele Zuma

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Relief and Referral to Oral Evidence on Quantum

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's statements on social media regarding the applicant were defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's allegations that the applicant received R40 million from ERP Mine are true and in the public interest.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to declaratory and interdictory relief.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's statements on TikTok and other social media platforms, alleging that the applicant received R40 million from ERP Mine intended for former mineworkers, were objectively defamatory. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his claims and did not report the matter to the police. The defence of truth and public benefit was unavailing, as the respondent relied on hearsay and unsupported affidavits. The statements imputed dishonesty and lack of integrity to the applicant, a government minister, and were widely disseminated, causing ongoing harm to his reputation and dignity. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the...

Court Disposition

Declaratory and interdictory relief granted; respondent found liable for damages; quantum and retraction referred to oral evidence; costs reserved.

Orders

  • It is declared that the allegations made by the respondent about the applicant on TikTok and other social media platforms, specifically that the applicant received R40 000 000.00 from East Rand Proprietary Mines, are false and defamatory.
  • It is declared that the respondent's publications of the statements are unlawful.