Search judgments by proposition, citation, court, judge or legal topic, then move directly into the source-grounded case analysis.
Results update automatically as you type.
South Africa decisions
Decisions matching the current search
Municipal Employees Pension Fund and Others v Ndou and Another (2025/076955) [2025] ZAGPJHC 762 (29 July 2025)
The High Court granted an urgent interim interdict stopping alleged defamatory statements about the MEPF, its administrator, and trustees pending action proceedings.
Hartland Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd and Another v APC Marketing (Pty)Ltd and Another (6831/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 150 (13 June 2023)
The court found that the respondents published statements on social media that were defamatory of the applicants, alleging unlawful conduct, safety violations, and fraud without substantiating these claims. The respondents failed to provide any expert evidence or factual foundation for their defence of truth and public interest. The applicants, on the other hand, provided affidavits from qualified professionals confirming compliance with building regulations and refuting the allegations. The court held that the applicants established a clear right to protection of their reputation, that the b…
Source excerpt
Impilo Yabantu Services (Pty) Ltd v Tshokotshi (EL878/2016) [2020] ZAECELLC 1; [2020] 3 All SA 169 (ECL) (14 January 2020)
The court found that the defendant's affidavit contained statements that were defamatory of the plaintiff, a company entitled to protection of its business reputation. The defendant failed to prove the truth of his allegations, did not verify the facts, and did not establish that the publication was in the public interest or protected by privilege. The statements were published to third parties and contributed to the suspension of the plaintiff's contract, causing reputational and financial harm. The defendant's conduct was actuated by ill motive and malice, and he failed to discharge the onu…
Source excerpt
Lawrence and Others v Mitha and Another (17993/2016) [2019] ZAGPJHC 343 (26 June 2019)
High Court defamation case over Facebook posts accusing the plaintiffs of theft and dishonesty. Damages were awarded against the second defendant.
Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (437/2010) [2011] ZASCA 117; 2011 (5) SA 329 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 9 (SCA) (5 July 2011)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a trading corporation has a right to claim general damages for defamation under the actio iniuriarum, as established by longstanding precedent. The court affirmed that corporations possess a protectable interest in their reputation, which is recognized by both common law and the Constitution. However, claims for special damages, such as loss of profits, must satisfy the requirements of the Aquilian action, including proof of wrongfulness, fault, causation, and patrimonial loss. The respondent's pleadings lacked an essential averment of the falsity of the…
Source excerpt
Van Es v Brightjan Properties BK t/a Stasie Motors (A28/2009) [2009] ZAWCHC 104 (12 June 2009)
The High Court found that the appellant's letter, although defamatory, was written at the request of a municipal official and addressed legitimate concerns regarding the conduct of municipal traffic officers and the respondent's vehicles. The evidence showed that the appellant had reasonable grounds for his suspicions and that his statements were relevant to the occasion. There was no proof that the appellant did not believe the truth of his statements or that he acted with malice. The Magistrate's finding that the appellant exceeded the bounds of privilege by making statements without confir…
Source excerpt
Argus Printing & Publishing Company Ltd. v Inkatha Freedom Party (468/90) [1992] ZASCA 63; 1992 (3) SA 579 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 185 (A) (15 May 1992)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there are no considerations of legal or public policy which justify excluding political bodies from the class of non-trading corporations entitled to sue for damages for defamation. The law of defamation already provides wide latitude for political debate and freedom of expression, and any weaknesses can be remedied as needed. Denying political bodies the right to sue would leave them vulnerable to defamatory attacks without legal recourse, particularly smaller organizations lacking media access. The court distinguished the position of the State, which is…
Source excerpt
Explore more
