Motsepe and Others v Motsepe and Another (2025/079559) [2025] ZALMPPHC 106 (2 June 2025)

Motsepe and Others v Motsepe and Another (2025/079559) [2025] ZALMPPHC 106 (2 June 2025)

The court found that the respondents published a series of defamatory statements about the applicants on social media, including serious allegations of criminal conduct. The respondents failed to provide any corroborating evidence for their claims and did not establish any recognised defence such as truth, public interest, or fair comment. The court held that the applicants' constitutional rights to dignity and reputation were infringed and that the injury was ongoing and serious. Given the respondents' lack of remorse and the likelihood of continued publication, damages were not considered an adequate remedy. The court concluded that interdictory relief was warranted to prevent further...

Citation
[2025] ZALMPPHC 106
Parties
Applicant: Elizabeth Morongoa Motsepe; Applicant: Magdeline Motlatjo Motsepe; Applicant: Mogale Klaas Motsepe; Respondent: Esther Motsepe; Respondent: Christina Mathukwane Letshelele (Neé Motsepe)
Court
Limpopo High Court, Polokwane
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2025
Case Number
2025/079559
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Interdict Application
Outcome
Application granted. The respondents are interdicted from further defamatory publication and ordered to retract and apologise. Costs awarded to the applicants.
Judges
Bresler
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdictory Relief, Dignity and Reputation, Social Media Publication, Urgent Application, Constitutional Rights Infringement
Delict Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Defamation Interdictory Relief Dignity and Reputation Social Media Publication Urgent Application +1 more

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Elizabeth Morongoa Motsepe

Applicant

Magdeline Motlatjo Motsepe

Applicant

Mogale Klaas Motsepe

Applicant

Esther Motsepe

Respondent

Christina Mathukwane Letshelele (Neé Motsepe)

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Determination of Urgent Interdict Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements published by the respondents on social media are defamatory of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the applicants are entitled to interdictory relief restraining further publication of defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether alternative remedies, such as damages, are sufficient in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondents published a series of defamatory statements about the applicants on social media, including serious allegations of criminal conduct. The respondents failed to provide any corroborating evidence for their claims and did not establish any recognised defence such as truth, public interest, or fair comment. The court held that the applicants' constitutional rights to dignity and reputation were infringed and that the injury was ongoing and serious. Given the respondents' lack of remorse and the likelihood of continued publication, damages were not considered an adequate remedy. The court concluded that interdictory relief was warranted to prevent further...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The respondents are interdicted from further defamatory publication and ordered to retract and apologise. Costs awarded to the applicants.

Orders

  • The applicants' non-compliance with the uniform rules of court is condoned and the application is heard as one of urgency in terms of rule 6(12).
  • The first and second respondents are interdicted and restrained from publishing or causing to publish any defamatory statements regarding the applicants on any social media platform within their control.