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
Malema v Rawula (139/2020) [2021] ZASCA 88 (23 June 2021)
Appeal in a defamation dispute over a Facebook post alleging EFF financial misconduct and VBS-related funding. The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Katz v Welz and Another (22440/2014) [2021] ZAWCHC 76 (26 April 2021)
The High Court held Noseweek defamed attorney Leonard Katz by alleging fraud, fake court orders, and double billing, and awarded damages and costs.
Xaba and Another v Mkhabela (A183/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 377 (15 August 2019)
The court found that while the article published by the Daily Sun was defamatory in that it implied wrongdoing and incompetence on the part of the Respondent, the Appellants successfully established the defence of reasonable publication. The journalists undertook thorough investigations, verified facts with multiple sources, and provided the Respondent an opportunity to respond, which he failed to do. The publication concerned matters of significant public interest, namely the circumcision programme and related complications. The evidence demonstrated that the Appellants acted without neglige…
Source excerpt
Da Luz v Faim (2003/25022) [2014] ZAGPJHC 243 (12 June 2014)
Default judgment in a defamation claim: the High Court awarded R200,000 and costs after finding newspaper statements about the plaintiff were defamatory and wrongful.
Isparta v Richter and Another (22452/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 243; 2013 (6) SA 529 (GNP) (4 September 2013)
The court found that both Facebook postings were defamatory of the plaintiff. The first posting, though not serious defamation, was gratuitous and intended to place the plaintiff in a bad light. The second posting was scandalous, suggesting the plaintiff tolerated sexual deviation, which compounded the damage to her reputation. The postings, taken together and in context, were clearly understood by the relevant audience to refer to the plaintiff, even if not always named. The second defendant, though not the author, was tagged and allowed his name to be coupled with the first defendant, makin…
Source excerpt
Mohamed and Another v Jassiem (201/1992) [1995] ZASCA 115; 1996 (1) SA 673 (SCA); (26 September 1995)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the words uttered by Nazim in the Wynberg mosque were defamatory of Jassiem within the Western Cape Muslim community, a substantial and respectable segment of South African society. The court affirmed that segmental defamation is actionable in South African law. The defence of qualified privilege was rejected because Nazim spoke prematurely, without proper investigation or compliance with Islamic procedural requirements for declaring apostasy, and the occasion was not privileged. The court found that Jassiem had proved he was accepted as a Muslim within t…
Source excerpt
Explore more
