Van Greunen and Another v Govern (5395/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 104 (6 April 2023)

Van Greunen and Another v Govern (5395/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 104 (6 April 2023)

The court found that the respondent had repeatedly published serious and unfounded defamatory statements about the applicants, causing ongoing injury to their reputation and business interests. The respondent failed to substantiate her defence of truth or public interest with evidence. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the applicants had a clear right, the injury was ongoing and reasonably apprehended, and no other satisfactory remedy existed. The court held that while the respondent was entitled to lay complaints with professional bodies and the police, she was not entitled to continue making unfounded defamatory statements. The applicants were not entitled to an apology...

Citation
[2023] ZAFSHC 104
Parties
Applicant: Johan van Greunen; Applicant: Van Greunen & Associates Inc; Respondent: Hilda McGovern
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 April 2023
Case Number
5395/2022
Procedural Posture
Interdict Application / Final Judgment
Outcome
Interdict granted restraining the respondent from publishing defamatory statements; apology not granted; respondent to pay 50% of applicants' taxed party and party costs.
Judges
JP Daffue
Legal Topics
Defamation, Interdict, Freedom of Expression, Dignity, Motion Proceedings, Apology Remedy
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Constitutional Law Defamation Interdict Freedom of Expression Dignity Motion Proceedings +1 more

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 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan van Greunen

Applicant

Van Greunen & Associates Inc

Applicant

Hilda McGovern

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Interdict Application / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's statements about the applicants are defamatory and warrant an interdict.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's right to freedom of expression outweighs the applicants' right to dignity and reputation.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants are entitled to an apology as part of the relief sought in motion proceedings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the respondent had repeatedly published serious and unfounded defamatory statements about the applicants, causing ongoing injury to their reputation and business interests. The respondent failed to substantiate her defence of truth or public interest with evidence. The requirements for a final interdict were met: the applicants had a clear right, the injury was ongoing and reasonably apprehended, and no other satisfactory remedy existed. The court held that while the respondent was entitled to lay complaints with professional bodies and the police, she was not entitled to continue making unfounded defamatory statements. The applicants were not entitled to an apology...

Court Disposition

Interdict granted restraining the respondent from publishing defamatory statements; apology not granted; respondent to pay 50% of applicants' taxed party and party costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is interdicted and restrained from publishing any defamatory statements regarding or concerning the applicants.
  • The respondent shall pay 50% of the taxed party and party costs of the applicants in respect of this application.