Mayula Procurement and Property Management (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kopane and Others (1885/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 126 (1 August 2019)

Mayula Procurement and Property Management (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kopane and Others (1885/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 126 (1 August 2019)

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought. The statements were made as political criticism concerning public figures and major political issues, and were presented as information to be investigated rather than as proven fact. In the prevailing context of political debate and public interest in corruption, the publication was reasonable and justified. The applicants' allegations of financial harm were vague and unsupported, and alternative remedies such as the Press Code and damages action were available. The application for a final interdict and removal of publications was therefore dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZAFSHC 126
Parties
Applicant: Mayula Procurement and Property Management (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Hantsi Bhetilda Matseke; Respondent: Semakaleng Patricia Kopane; Respondent: The Democratic Alliance; Respondent: Pulane Choane; Respondent: Central Media Group (Pty) Ltd t/a OFM; Respondent: Charles Smith; Respondent: Media 24 Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Netwerk 24
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2019
Case Number
1885/2019
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Application for Interdict and Removal of Allegedly Defamatory Publications
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Loubser
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Human Dignity, Reasonable Publication, Public Interest
Civil Procedure Delict Constitutional Law Defamation Interdict Freedom of Expression Human Dignity Reasonable Publication +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 4 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mayula Procurement and Property Management (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Hantsi Bhetilda Matseke

Applicant

Semakaleng Patricia Kopane

Respondent

The Democratic Alliance

Respondent

Pulane Choane

Respondent

Central Media Group (Pty) Ltd t/a OFM

Respondent

Charles Smith

Respondent

Media 24 Holdings (Pty) Ltd t/a Netwerk 24

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Application for Interdict and Removal of Allegedly Defamatory Publications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made and published by the respondents were defamatory of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants established a clear right to final interdictory relief.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents' conduct was unlawful or justified by defences such as truth, fair comment, or public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicants failed to establish a clear right to the relief sought. The statements were made as political criticism concerning public figures and major political issues, and were presented as information to be investigated rather than as proven fact. In the prevailing context of political debate and public interest in corruption, the publication was reasonable and justified. The applicants' allegations of financial harm were vague and unsupported, and alternative remedies such as the Press Code and damages action were available. The application for a final interdict and removal of publications was therefore dismissed.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed with costs.