Strydom v Harman (UM123/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 70 (8 June 2023)

Strydom v Harman (UM123/2022) [2023] ZANWHC 70 (8 June 2023)

The court found that the respondent published defamatory statements about the applicant on social media, including accusations of theft and corruption, which incited violence and threatened the applicant’s life. These statements were not supported by evidence and were not made in good faith. The applicant established a clear right to protect his reputation and dignity, demonstrated irreparable harm, and showed that no alternative remedy was available due to the respondent’s insolvency. The respondent’s compliance with the removal of posts did not absolve him from providing the required list of persons with whom the media was shared. The ex parte urgent order was justified given the nature...

Citation
[2023] ZANWHC 70
Parties
Applicant: Pieter Hendrick Strydom; Respondent: Francois Jurie Nicolaas (Cois) Harman
Court
North West High Court, Mafikeng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 June 2023
Case Number
UM123/2022
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Return Date for Confirmation of Interim Interdicts
Outcome
Interim interdicts confirmed as final orders; costs awarded against the respondent.
Judges
J T Djaje
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Defamation, Urgent Ex Parte Application, Protection of Dignity
Civil Procedure Delict Final Interdict Defamation Urgent Ex Parte Application Protection of 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 5 Authorities cited 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieter Hendrick Strydom

Applicant

Francois Jurie Nicolaas (Cois) Harman

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Return Date for Confirmation of Interim Interdicts

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the interim interdicts granted on 1 July 2022 should be confirmed as final orders.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's conduct constituted actionable defamation against the applicant.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant established a clear right, irreparable harm, and absence of alternative remedy for a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent published defamatory statements about the applicant on social media, including accusations of theft and corruption, which incited violence and threatened the applicant’s life. These statements were not supported by evidence and were not made in good faith. The applicant established a clear right to protect his reputation and dignity, demonstrated irreparable harm, and showed that no alternative remedy was available due to the respondent’s insolvency. The respondent’s compliance with the removal of posts did not absolve him from providing the required list of persons with whom the media was shared. The ex parte urgent order was justified given the nature...

Court Disposition

Interim interdicts confirmed as final orders; costs awarded against the respondent.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the order dated 1 July 2022 are confirmed: the respondent must furnish a complete list to the applicant’s attorney of all persons or institutions with whom he shared any media concerning the applicant, accompanied by an affidavit confirming the list’s completeness and accuracy.
  • The respondent is ordered to pay the costs of the application on the scale as between attorney and own client.