Tau v Mashaba and Others (335/2019) [2020] ZASCA 26; 2020 (5) SA 135 (SCA) (26 March 2020)

Tau v Mashaba and Others (335/2019) [2020] ZASCA 26; 2020 (5) SA 135 (SCA) (26 March 2020)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by granting a declaratory order that the appellant's statements were defamatory and by issuing final relief not sought by the parties. The dispute was defined by the pleadings as an application for interim interdict pending a defamation action, not for final declaratory relief. The appellant established a factual foundation for a defence of justification, and the respondent failed to show ongoing apprehension of harm or the absence of an adequate alternative remedy. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, and damages would suffice to vindicate the respondent's reputation if defamation were proved. The appeal was...

Citation
[2020] ZASCA 26
Parties
Appellant: Parks Tau; Respondent: Herman Mashaba; Respondent: African National Congress Women's League; Respondent: Congress of South African Trade Unions
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 March 2020
Case Number
335/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld; high court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs.
Judges
Maya, Zondi, Molemela, Schippers, Gorven
Legal Topics
Interdict, Defamation, Justification Defence, Motion Proceedings, Separation of Issues
Civil Procedure Interdict Defamation Justification Defence Motion Proceedings Separation of Issues

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 16 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Parks Tau

Appellant

Herman Mashaba

Respondent

African National Congress Women's League

Respondent

Congress of South African Trade Unions

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the high court erred in granting a declaratory order that the statements made by the appellant were defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent was entitled to an interim or final interdict restraining the appellant from repeating the statements.
  3. 3 Whether the appellant established a factual foundation for a defence of justification.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by granting a declaratory order that the appellant's statements were defamatory and by issuing final relief not sought by the parties. The dispute was defined by the pleadings as an application for interim interdict pending a defamation action, not for final declaratory relief. The appellant established a factual foundation for a defence of justification, and the respondent failed to show ongoing apprehension of harm or the absence of an adequate alternative remedy. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, and damages would suffice to vindicate the respondent's reputation if defamation were proved. The appeal was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; high court order set aside and replaced with dismissal of the application with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the high court is set aside and replaced with: 'The application is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.'