Raphala v Baloyi (2021/29113) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1184 (17 October 2023)

Raphala v Baloyi (2021/29113) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1184 (17 October 2023)

The court found that the respondent's statements, both those previously litigated and the newer ones, were objectively defamatory and not protected by any recognised defence. The respondent failed to prove truth, public interest, or fair comment, and did not establish privilege or reasonable publication. The statements went far beyond legitimate criticism and robust public debate, amounting to crude and baseless invective. The respondent's reliance on freedom of speech under section 16 of the Constitution was rejected, as such protection does not extend to defamatory statements lacking factual foundation. The court granted the applicant's requested relief, including declaratory and...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1184
Parties
Applicant: Ashley Raphala; Respondent: Nhlamulo Baloyi
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2023
Case Number
2021/29113
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief Following Prior Damages Award
Outcome
Application granted. Declaratory and interdictory relief, retraction, apology, and punitive costs awarded to the applicant.
Judges
Wright
Legal Topics
Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Fair Comment, Public Interest, Privilege, Damages
Delict Constitutional Law Defamation Freedom of Expression Fair Comment Public Interest Privilege Damages

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 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ashley Raphala

Applicant

Nhlamulo Baloyi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief Following Prior Damages Award

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's statements made on social media constitute actionable defamation against the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's defences of truth, fair comment, public interest, and privilege are sustainable.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to declaratory and interdictory relief, including retraction and apology, in addition to prior damages awarded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent's statements, both those previously litigated and the newer ones, were objectively defamatory and not protected by any recognised defence. The respondent failed to prove truth, public interest, or fair comment, and did not establish privilege or reasonable publication. The statements went far beyond legitimate criticism and robust public debate, amounting to crude and baseless invective. The respondent's reliance on freedom of speech under section 16 of the Constitution was rejected, as such protection does not extend to defamatory statements lacking factual foundation. The court granted the applicant's requested relief, including declaratory and...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Declaratory and interdictory relief, retraction, apology, and punitive costs awarded to the applicant.

Orders

  • It is declared that the respondent's statements of 17 May 2021, 19 and 28 March 2023, and 5 April 2023 are defamatory of the applicant.
  • The respondent is interdicted from publishing further defamatory statements about the applicant.