Tjabadi v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2024/039872) [2024] ZAGPJHC 664 (19 July 2024)

Tjabadi v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2024/039872) [2024] ZAGPJHC 664 (19 July 2024)

The court assumed, in favour of the applicant, that the statements complained of were defamatory and that Eskom was responsible for their publication. However, the applicant's own papers established that the statements were probably lawful, as Eskom asserted their truth and the applicant failed to address the evidentiary basis in the CCMA record. The court found that the statements were made on privileged occasions in legal proceedings and there was no evidence of malice or irrelevance. The applicant failed to produce the CCMA record or meaningfully dispute Eskom's version. In motion proceedings, relief can only be granted on undisputed facts, and the applicant's own evidence disclosed...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 664
Parties
Applicant: Sipho Tjabadi; Respondent: Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 July 2024
Case Number
2024/039872
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Unopposed Motion; Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief
Outcome
Application dismissed.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Motion Proceedings, Onus of Proof
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Qualified Privilege Motion Proceedings Onus of Proof

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sipho Tjabadi

Applicant

Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Unopposed Motion; Application for Declaratory and Interdictory Relief

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by Eskom in legal proceedings to which Mr. Tjabadi was not a party were defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether Eskom's statements were protected by qualified privilege.
  3. 3 Whether the applicant is entitled to declaratory, interdictory, and apology relief on the established facts.

Ratio Decidendi

The court assumed, in favour of the applicant, that the statements complained of were defamatory and that Eskom was responsible for their publication. However, the applicant's own papers established that the statements were probably lawful, as Eskom asserted their truth and the applicant failed to address the evidentiary basis in the CCMA record. The court found that the statements were made on privileged occasions in legal proceedings and there was no evidence of malice or irrelevance. The applicant failed to produce the CCMA record or meaningfully dispute Eskom's version. In motion proceedings, relief can only be granted on undisputed facts, and the applicant's own evidence disclosed...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • No order as to costs was made.