Nkosi v Mazwai (14182/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 129 (10 March 2022)

Nkosi v Mazwai (14182/2021) [2022] ZAGPJHC 129 (10 March 2022)

The court found that the respondent's social media posts, although not naming the applicant directly, were clearly intended to refer to him and were defamatory. The posts suggested that the applicant was a sexual predator and called for his exclusion from industry events. Applying the reasonable person test, the court held that the statements were defamatory. The respondent failed to provide any alternative, non-defamatory meaning and did not discharge the onus to rebut the presumption of wrongfulness. The argument regarding non-joinder of 'Women For Change' was rejected as lacking merit. Given the respondent's history of similar conduct and her refusal to cease despite warnings, the...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPJHC 129
Parties
Applicant: Themba Mbongeni Nkosi; Respondent: Nontsikelelo Mazwai
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 March 2022
Case Number
14182/2021
Procedural Posture
Final Interdict Application / Part B: Final Determination After Interim Relief
Outcome
Final interdict granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.
Judges
Fisher
Legal Topics
Defamation, Final Interdict, Social Media Publication, Wrongfulness Presumption, Costs Punitive Scale
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Final Interdict Social Media Publication Wrongfulness Presumption Costs Punitive Scale

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 3 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Themba Mbongeni Nkosi

Applicant

Nontsikelelo Mazwai

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Final Interdict Application / Part B: Final Determination After Interim Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's social media posts are defamatory of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict restraining the respondent from making further defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent has discharged the onus to rebut the presumption of wrongfulness.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's social media posts, although not naming the applicant directly, were clearly intended to refer to him and were defamatory. The posts suggested that the applicant was a sexual predator and called for his exclusion from industry events. Applying the reasonable person test, the court held that the statements were defamatory. The respondent failed to provide any alternative, non-defamatory meaning and did not discharge the onus to rebut the presumption of wrongfulness. The argument regarding non-joinder of 'Women For Change' was rejected as lacking merit. Given the respondent's history of similar conduct and her refusal to cease despite warnings, the...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted in favour of the applicant; respondent ordered to pay costs on an attorney and client scale.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted from making further defamatory statements about the applicant on social media or elsewhere.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of part B of the application on the scale as between attorney and client.