Mokhoanatse v Maphatsoe and Another (03042/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 256 (23 August 2016)

Mokhoanatse v Maphatsoe and Another (03042/2016) [2016] ZAGPJHC 256 (23 August 2016)

The court found that the statements made by the first respondent, accusing the applicant of being a deserter and agent provocateur, were not protected by the latitude afforded to political debate. These statements were serious allegations that attacked the applicant's character and reputation, going beyond mere political disagreement. The first respondent had no factual basis or personal knowledge to support his claims. Similarly, the second respondent's statement referring to the applicant as a 'sell-out' was made in the context of accusations of betrayal and double agency, which were defamatory. Neither respondent established any valid defence such as fair comment, truth, or public...

Citation
[2016] ZAGPJHC 256
Parties
Applicant: Mokhoanatse Edward Mahlomola; Respondent: Maphatsoe Ramantoana Emmanuel; Respondent: Mthembu Jackson
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2016
Case Number
03042/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion Court; Application for Defamation and Damages
Outcome
Application for defamation against both respondents succeeds; quantum of damages to be determined by oral evidence.
Judges
Satchwell
Legal Topics
Defamation, Political Speech, Damages Quantification, Fair Comment Defence
Delict Defamation Political Speech Damages Quantification Fair Comment Defence

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 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokhoanatse Edward Mahlomola

Applicant

Maphatsoe Ramantoana Emmanuel

Respondent

Mthembu Jackson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion Court; Application for Defamation and Damages

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the respondents were defamatory of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the context of robust political debate provides a defence to the alleged defamation.
  3. 3 Whether the respondents had any factual basis or justification for their statements.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by the first respondent, accusing the applicant of being a deserter and agent provocateur, were not protected by the latitude afforded to political debate. These statements were serious allegations that attacked the applicant's character and reputation, going beyond mere political disagreement. The first respondent had no factual basis or personal knowledge to support his claims. Similarly, the second respondent's statement referring to the applicant as a 'sell-out' was made in the context of accusations of betrayal and double agency, which were defamatory. Neither respondent established any valid defence such as fair comment, truth, or public...

Court Disposition

Application for defamation against both respondents succeeds; quantum of damages to be determined by oral evidence.

Orders

  • The application against first respondent succeeds. He has defamed applicant.
  • The application against second respondent succeeds. He has defamed applicant.