Mxenge v Gcilishe (952/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 61 (9 June 2020)

Mxenge v Gcilishe (952/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 61 (9 June 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as the allegedly defamatory Facebook post had already been deleted and an apology had been posted by the respondent prior to the application. There was no reasonable apprehension of future harm, and the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a damages claim. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, as the harm was historical and not ongoing. The court held that granting the interim relief sought would amount to a final determination of the parties' rights, which was inappropriate at this stage. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll with costs.

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 61
Parties
Applicant: Dr. Sizwe Mxenge; Respondent: Sixolise Gcilishe
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 June 2020
Case Number
952/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off From the Roll
Outcome
Application struck off the roll with costs.
Judges
Dunywa
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interim Interdict, Social Media Publication, Urgency, Alternative Remedy
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Interim Interdict Social Media Publication Urgency Alternative Remedy

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 6 Authorities cited 15 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Dr. Sizwe Mxenge

Applicant

Sixolise Gcilishe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application to Strike Off From the Roll

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the application is urgent and should be heard on an urgent basis.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to interim interdicts and declaratory relief regarding alleged defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's apology and removal of the Facebook post constitute sufficient compliance.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to establish urgency, as the allegedly defamatory Facebook post had already been deleted and an apology had been posted by the respondent prior to the application. There was no reasonable apprehension of future harm, and the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of a damages claim. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, as the harm was historical and not ongoing. The court held that granting the interim relief sought would amount to a final determination of the parties' rights, which was inappropriate at this stage. Accordingly, the application was struck off the roll with costs.

Court Disposition

Application struck off the roll with costs.

Orders

  • The application is struck off from the roll with costs.