Van Deventer and Van Deventer Inc v Mdakane (2023/041722) [2023] ZAGPJHC 529 (22 May 2023)

Van Deventer and Van Deventer Inc v Mdakane (2023/041722) [2023] ZAGPJHC 529 (22 May 2023)

The court found that, although the respondent's initial post used strident language, a reasonable reader would not interpret the word 'scam' in its literal sense of dishonesty but rather as an expression of disappointment with the service received. The subsequent amendment of the post further clarified its innocuous nature, reflecting subjective dissatisfaction rather than an accusation of malpractice or dishonesty. There was no evidence of ongoing harm or further defamatory statements. The relief sought by the applicant, including a blanket prohibition on future comment, was inappropriate and could not be granted even if defamation had been established. The application was unnecessary...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 529
Parties
Applicant: Van Deventer and Van Deventer Inc; Respondent: Sizwe Intellect Mdakane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
22 May 2023
Case Number
2023/041722
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Removal of Alleged Defamatory Social Media Post
Outcome
Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Defamation, Social Media Publication, Interdict, Harm Assessment
Delict Defamation Social Media Publication Interdict Harm Assessment

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

Van Deventer and Van Deventer Inc

Applicant

Sizwe Intellect Mdakane

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Application for Interdict and Removal of Alleged Defamatory Social Media Post

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's Google Review post constituted actionable defamation against the applicant.
  2. 2 Whether the relief sought by the applicant, including a blanket ban on future online comment, was appropriate.
  3. 3 Whether the application was necessary given the respondent's amendment of the post.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that, although the respondent's initial post used strident language, a reasonable reader would not interpret the word 'scam' in its literal sense of dishonesty but rather as an expression of disappointment with the service received. The subsequent amendment of the post further clarified its innocuous nature, reflecting subjective dissatisfaction rather than an accusation of malpractice or dishonesty. There was no evidence of ongoing harm or further defamatory statements. The relief sought by the applicant, including a blanket prohibition on future comment, was inappropriate and could not be granted even if defamation had been established. The application was unnecessary...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed. Each party to pay their own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay their own costs.