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
Motsepe and Others v Motsepe and Another (2025/079559) [2025] ZALMPPHC 106 (2 June 2025)
High Court urgent defamation interdict granted over social media posts accusing family members of serious wrongdoing.
Sibiya v Amad and Another (16783/2022) [2022] ZAGPJHC 440 (29 June 2022)
The court found that the respondents published a series of statements and media interviews that were defamatory, false, and malicious, targeting the applicant's integrity, reputation, and the independence of GFIS. The respondents failed to provide factual evidence to support their allegations and did not rebut the presumption of unlawfulness and intent. The Public Protector's report exonerated the applicant, and its findings were final and unchallenged. The respondents' reliance on the Zebediela report was misplaced, as they were not in possession of it at the time of publication, and its fin…
Source excerpt
Munthali v Passenger Rail Agency of South Africa (23083/2021) [2022] ZAGPPHC 252; [2022] 8 BLLR 769 (GP) (13 April 2022)
The High Court held that both a suspension notice and later media statement could be read as defamatory, so the defendant’s exception was dismissed with costs.
Hanekom v Zuma (D6316/2019) [2019] ZAKZDHC 16 (6 September 2019)
The court found that the respondent's tweet, in its natural and ordinary meaning and in the context of South African political history and the respondent's own evidence, implied that the applicant was an apartheid spy. The phrase 'known enemy agent' historically referred to apartheid spies, and the respondent's references to the Zondo Commission and intelligence operations reinforced this implication. The respondent failed to provide any evidence to justify the defamatory statement, and his beliefs and political context did not alter the reasonable reader's interpretation. The tweet was there…
Source excerpt
Manuel v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (13349/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 157; [2019] 3 All SA 584 (GJ); 2019 (5) SA 210 (GJ) (30 May 2019)
The court found that the statement published by the respondents was per se defamatory of the applicant, imputing corruption, nepotism, and unlawful conduct in the SARS Commissioner appointment process. The respondents failed to establish the truth of the allegations, did not take reasonable steps to verify information, and acted with reckless disregard for the applicant's reputation. The publication was not reasonable, nor was it protected fair comment, as the underlying facts were false and the conduct actuated by malice. The applicant's rights to dignity and reputation outweighed the respon…
Source excerpt
Van der Westhuizen and Another v Minister van Veiligheid & Sekuriteit and Another (721/2007) [2008] ZANCHC 78 (19 December 2008)
High Court damages award for unlawful and malicious arrest and detention, with higher compensation for a prominent first plaintiff exposed to public humiliation.
Explore more
