Mbiza and Another v Timati (2023/053714) [2025] ZAGPJHC 651 (27 June 2025)

Mbiza and Another v Timati (2023/053714) [2025] ZAGPJHC 651 (27 June 2025)

The court found that the respondent made four Facebook posts after the interim interdict of 21 June 2023, at least two of which were defamatory and injurious to the applicants. The respondent's denials were bald, unsubstantiated, and failed to create bona fide factual disputes. The respondent did not provide any valid defence such as truth, fair comment, or privilege, nor did he discharge the evidential burden to cast reasonable doubt on willfulness and mala fide conduct. The court held that the respondent's conduct was in flagrant disregard of the court order and amounted to contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The court declined to order immediate incarceration, instead granting a...

Citation
[2025] ZAGPJHC 651
Parties
Applicant: Samuel Banele Mbiza; Applicant: The Revelation Spiritual Home; Respondent: Abongile Timati
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 June 2025
Case Number
2023/053714
Procedural Posture
Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Contempt Application Following Interim Interdict
Outcome
Application granted. Respondent found in contempt of court and subject to a suspended order of incarceration on conditions.
Judges
Dippenaar
Legal Topics
Civil Contempt of Court, Defamation, Interim Interdict, Social Media Publication, Freedom of Expression Limitation
Civil Procedure Delict Civil Contempt of Court Defamation Interim Interdict Social Media Publication Freedom of Expression Limitation

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 18 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Samuel Banele Mbiza

Applicant

The Revelation Spiritual Home

Applicant

Abongile Timati

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Contempt Application / Final Judgment on Contempt Application Following Interim Interdict

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's Facebook posts after 21 June 2023 contravened the interim interdict granted by Shepstone AJ.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's statements were defamatory and injurious to the applicants.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct amounted to willful and mala fide contempt of court.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent made four Facebook posts after the interim interdict of 21 June 2023, at least two of which were defamatory and injurious to the applicants. The respondent's denials were bald, unsubstantiated, and failed to create bona fide factual disputes. The respondent did not provide any valid defence such as truth, fair comment, or privilege, nor did he discharge the evidential burden to cast reasonable doubt on willfulness and mala fide conduct. The court held that the respondent's conduct was in flagrant disregard of the court order and amounted to contempt beyond reasonable doubt. The court declined to order immediate incarceration, instead granting a...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Respondent found in contempt of court and subject to a suspended order of incarceration on conditions.

Orders

  • The respondent is declared to be in contempt of the order granted by Shepstone AJ on 21 June 2023 under case number 2023/053714.
  • The respondent is committed to prison for thirty days, suspended for one year or until final determination of Part B, on condition of compliance with the order of 21 June 2023.