Tikana-Gxotiwe v Holomisa (890/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 54 (2 June 2020)

Tikana-Gxotiwe v Holomisa (890/2020) [2020] ZAECGHC 54 (2 June 2020)

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the tweet referred to her as a corrupt person or that an ordinary reasonable reader would interpret it as such. Even if the tweet was defamatory, the respondent's defence of fair comment was upheld, as the comment was based on notorious facts about corruption in South Africa and the circumstances surrounding the quarantine decision. The applicant, as a politician, should expect robust criticism. The urgency of the application was not justified, and the respondent was entitled to costs.

Citation
[2020] ZAECGHC 54
Parties
Applicant: Weziwe Tikana-Gxotiwe; Respondent: Bantubonke Harrington Holomisa
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 June 2020
Case Number
890/2020
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Bloem
Legal Topics
Defamation, Fair Comment, Public Interest, Political Speech
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Fair Comment Public Interest Political Speech

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 13 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Weziwe Tikana-Gxotiwe

Applicant

Bantubonke Harrington Holomisa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / First Instance Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's tweet was defamatory of the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the tweet referred to the applicant as being involved in corruption.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's defences of fair comment and truth/public benefit are sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to prove that the tweet referred to her as a corrupt person or that an ordinary reasonable reader would interpret it as such. Even if the tweet was defamatory, the respondent's defence of fair comment was upheld, as the comment was based on notorious facts about corruption in South Africa and the circumstances surrounding the quarantine decision. The applicant, as a politician, should expect robust criticism. The urgency of the application was not justified, and the respondent was entitled to costs.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the respondent's costs.