Mokate v United Democratic Movement and Another (26427/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 377 (23 July 2020)

Mokate v United Democratic Movement and Another (26427/2020) [2020] ZAGPPHC 377 (23 July 2020)

The court found that the application was not urgent. The allegedly defamatory statements had been in the public domain since 17 June 2020, and any harm to the applicant's reputation had already occurred. The applicant could obtain redress through ordinary proceedings, as is standard in defamation matters. The respondents would retain the statements at their own risk, potentially increasing damages if their defences failed. The court declined to grant a punitive costs order but ordered the applicant to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the urgent enrolment.

Citation
[2020] ZAGPPHC 377
Parties
Applicant: Dr Renosi Mokate; Respondent: United Democratic Movement; Respondent: Retired Major General Bantubonke Harrington Holomisa
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2020
Case Number
26427/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief
Outcome
Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; applicant to pay wasted costs.
Judges
RG Tolmay
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Urgency, Wasted Costs
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Interdict Urgency Wasted Costs

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 2 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr Renosi Mokate

Applicant

United Democratic Movement

Respondent

Retired Major General Bantubonke Harrington Holomisa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Urgent Interdict and Declaratory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard as such.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interdictory and declaratory relief for alleged defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether the harm suffered by the applicant is capable of urgent redress or should be addressed in due course.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the application was not urgent. The allegedly defamatory statements had been in the public domain since 17 June 2020, and any harm to the applicant's reputation had already occurred. The applicant could obtain redress through ordinary proceedings, as is standard in defamation matters. The respondents would retain the statements at their own risk, potentially increasing damages if their defences failed. The court declined to grant a punitive costs order but ordered the applicant to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the urgent enrolment.

Court Disposition

Application struck from the roll for lack of urgency; applicant to pay wasted costs.

Orders

  • The matter is struck from the roll due to lack of urgency.
  • The applicant is to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the enrolment of the matter on the urgent court roll, including the costs of two counsel, one of whom is senior counsel.