Media 24 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Maluleke (HCA 05/2024) [2025] ZALMPTHC 1 (3 February 2025)

Media 24 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Maluleke (HCA 05/2024) [2025] ZALMPTHC 1 (3 February 2025)

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo erred in finding that reporting the respondent as struck off the roll was false and defamatory. The order striking the respondent off the roll existed and was not a nullity; only its operation was suspended pending appeal. The publication was a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, protected by qualified privilege, and no malice was alleged or proved. The refusal to admit the supplementary answering affidavit was a misdirection, as the evidence was material and its exclusion resulted in substantial injustice. The respondent's claim for a declarator in respect of the first averment in the article failed.

Citation
[2025] ZALMPTHC 1
Parties
Appellant: Media 24 (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Russel Molefe; Respondent: Tsundzuka Kevin Maluleke
Court
Limpopo High Court, Thohoyandou
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 February 2025
Case Number
HCA 05/2024
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Declaratory Orders Regarding Defamation
Outcome
Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of the application for leave to appeal. Paragraph 94.2 of the court a quo’s order is set aside and substituted: the applicant’s claim for a declarator in respect of the first averment in the article fails.
Judges
TV Ratshibvumo, A Van Wyk, S Mathabathe
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Fair and Accurate Reporting, Superior Court Act Section 18, Motion Proceedings, Admission of Affidavits
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Defamation Qualified Privilege Fair and Accurate Reporting Superior Court Act Section 18 Motion Proceedings Admission of Affidavits

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Media 24 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Russel Molefe

Appellant

Tsundzuka Kevin Maluleke

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment on Declaratory Orders Regarding Defamation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether reporting that the respondent was struck off the roll of advocates was false and defamatory in light of a pending appeal.
  2. 2 Whether the publication was protected by qualified privilege as a fair and accurate report of court proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the court a quo erred in refusing admission of the supplementary answering affidavit.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal succeeded because the court a quo erred in finding that reporting the respondent as struck off the roll was false and defamatory. The order striking the respondent off the roll existed and was not a nullity; only its operation was suspended pending appeal. The publication was a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, protected by qualified privilege, and no malice was alleged or proved. The refusal to admit the supplementary answering affidavit was a misdirection, as the evidence was material and its exclusion resulted in substantial injustice. The respondent's claim for a declarator in respect of the first averment in the article failed.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld with costs, including costs of the application for leave to appeal. Paragraph 94.2 of the court a quo’s order is set aside and substituted: the applicant’s claim for a declarator in respect of the first averment in the article fails.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal.
  • Paragraph 94.2 of the court a quo’s order is set aside and substituted with: The applicant’s claim for a declarator in respect of the first averment in the article published by the respondents about the applicant on 21 January 2023 fails.