R.K.M v R.L.B (10175/2013) [2014] ZAKZPHC 49; 2015 (1) SA 270 (KZP) (19 September 2014)

R.K.M v R.L.B (10175/2013) [2014] ZAKZPHC 49; 2015 (1) SA 270 (KZP) (19 September 2014)

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to seek removal of the defamatory Facebook postings, as the respondent herself admitted that the postings may have remained until the interim order was granted. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied in respect of the removal of the specific postings in annexure 'D'. However, the court declined to grant a blanket interdict restraining the respondent from making any future defamatory statements, as such relief would be overly broad, speculative, and could unjustifiably limit the respondent's right to freedom of expression. The court emphasized that not every defamatory statement is actionable and that the...

Citation
[2014] ZAKZPHC 49
Parties
Applicant: R.K.M; Respondent: R.L.B
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 September 2014
Case Number
10175/2013
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Confirmation of Interim Order (rule Nisi)
Outcome
The rule nisi ordering the respondent to remove all messages contained in annexure 'D' from her Facebook pages is confirmed. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application. Relief restraining future defamatory statements is refused.
Judges
M R Chetty
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Social Media Publication, Parental Rights
Civil Procedure Family and Children Defamation Interdict Social Media Publication Parental Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

R.K.M

Applicant

R.L.B

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Confirmation of Interim Order (rule Nisi)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's Facebook postings were defamatory and warranted removal.
  2. 2 Whether a final interdict should be granted restraining future defamatory statements by the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant has satisfied the requirements for a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant had established a clear right to seek removal of the defamatory Facebook postings, as the respondent herself admitted that the postings may have remained until the interim order was granted. The requirements for a final interdict were satisfied in respect of the removal of the specific postings in annexure 'D'. However, the court declined to grant a blanket interdict restraining the respondent from making any future defamatory statements, as such relief would be overly broad, speculative, and could unjustifiably limit the respondent's right to freedom of expression. The court emphasized that not every defamatory statement is actionable and that the...

Court Disposition

The rule nisi ordering the respondent to remove all messages contained in annexure 'D' from her Facebook pages is confirmed. The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application. Relief restraining future defamatory statements is refused.

Orders

  • The rule nisi issued on 10 September 2013 ordering the respondent to remove all messages contained in annexure 'D' to the applicant's founding affidavit from her Facebook pages is confirmed.
  • The respondent is to pay the costs of this application.