Mdlekeza v Gallie (15490/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 167; 2021 (4) SA 531 (WCC) (20 April 2021)

Mdlekeza v Gallie (15490/2020) [2021] ZAWCHC 167; 2021 (4) SA 531 (WCC) (20 April 2021)

The court found that the respondent's counterclaim for damages based on alleged sexual assault was prescribed, as she had knowledge of the relevant facts in 2014 and instituted her claim only in 2020, outside the three-year prescription period. The recent amendment to the Prescription Act did not apply retrospectively. Regarding the defamation claim, the court held that the respondent's tweets were defamatory, wrongful, and intentional. The tweets accused the applicant of sexual assault and implied he was a sexual predator, published on a public social media platform without prior criminal charges or steps taken against the applicant. The respondent failed to establish any lawful defence,...

Citation
[2021] ZAWCHC 167
Parties
Applicant: Malizole Daniel Mdlekeza; Respondent: Megan Gallie
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 April 2021
Case Number
15490/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment After Oral Evidence
Outcome
The applicant's claim for defamation succeeded; the respondent's counterclaim was dismissed as prescribed.
Judges
Slingers
Legal Topics
Defamation, Prescription, Damages Quantification, Social Media Publication
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Prescription Damages Quantification Social Media Publication

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

Parties

Malizole Daniel Mdlekeza

Applicant

Megan Gallie

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment After Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's counterclaim for damages based on alleged sexual assault had prescribed.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's tweets about the applicant constituted actionable defamation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established a lawful defence to the publication of the tweets.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's counterclaim for damages based on alleged sexual assault was prescribed, as she had knowledge of the relevant facts in 2014 and instituted her claim only in 2020, outside the three-year prescription period. The recent amendment to the Prescription Act did not apply retrospectively. Regarding the defamation claim, the court held that the respondent's tweets were defamatory, wrongful, and intentional. The tweets accused the applicant of sexual assault and implied he was a sexual predator, published on a public social media platform without prior criminal charges or steps taken against the applicant. The respondent failed to establish any lawful defence,...

Court Disposition

The applicant's claim for defamation succeeded; the respondent's counterclaim was dismissed as prescribed.

Orders

  • The respondent is directed to publish and pin a specified apology on her Twitter account for at least 30 continuous days, allowing comments and retweets.
  • The respondent is to pay the applicant R65,000.00 within 60 days, which the applicant shall pay to a charity of his choosing.