Netshipise v Munnick and Others (29585/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 547 (14 August 2018)

Netshipise v Munnick and Others (29585/2018) [2018] ZAGPJHC 547 (14 August 2018)

The court found that the applicant had established urgency due to the immediate and potentially irreparable harm caused by defamatory and threatening statements on social media, which impact her dignity and commercial interests. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the applicant demonstrated a prima facie right to dignity and business reputation, a reasonable apprehension of harm, no alternative satisfactory remedy given the speed and reach of social media, and the balance of convenience favoured granting relief. The court accepted that the tweets, even if not constituting a direct threat to life, posed a threat to the applicant's livelihood and reputation....

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 547
Parties
Applicant: Belinda Netshipise; Respondent: Shantye Munnick; Respondent: Thembeni Joyce Mpaza; Respondent: Rethabile Seema; Respondent: Boitumelo Stofile
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 August 2018
Case Number
29585/2018
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Sought on Urgent Basis
Outcome
Urgent interim interdict granted against the first and second respondents; costs awarded against them.
Judges
Petersen
Legal Topics
Interim Interdict, Defamation, Urgency Rule 6 12, Social Media Harassment, Right to Dignity
Civil Procedure Delict Interim Interdict Defamation Urgency Rule 6 12 Social Media Harassment Right to Dignity

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Belinda Netshipise

Applicant

Shantye Munnick

Respondent

Thembeni Joyce Mpaza

Respondent

Rethabile Seema

Respondent

Boitumelo Stofile

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Interim Interdict Sought on Urgent Basis

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to urgent interim interdictory relief against the first and second respondents for defamatory and threatening conduct on social media.
  2. 2 Whether the requirements for an interim interdict have been satisfied.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant's rights to dignity and commercial interests are at risk of irreparable harm.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established urgency due to the immediate and potentially irreparable harm caused by defamatory and threatening statements on social media, which impact her dignity and commercial interests. The requirements for an interim interdict were satisfied: the applicant demonstrated a prima facie right to dignity and business reputation, a reasonable apprehension of harm, no alternative satisfactory remedy given the speed and reach of social media, and the balance of convenience favoured granting relief. The court accepted that the tweets, even if not constituting a direct threat to life, posed a threat to the applicant's livelihood and reputation....

Court Disposition

Urgent interim interdict granted against the first and second respondents; costs awarded against them.

Orders

  • The Rules of Court are dispensed with and the matter is treated as urgent in terms of Rule 6(12).
  • The first and second respondents are interdicted and restrained from approaching the applicant's residential or business premises with the purpose of inciting violence, harassing, or threatening the applicant.