South Africa Case Law

Tau v Mashaba and Others (335/2019)

Tau v Mashaba and Others (335/2019) [2020] ZASCA 26; 2020 (5) SA 135 (SCA) (26 March 2020)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

335/2019

Judges

Maya, Zondi, Molemela, Schippers, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the high court erred by granting a declaratory order that the appellant's statements were defamatory and by issuing final relief not sought by the parties. The dispute was defined by the pleadings as an application for interim interdict pending a defamation action, not for final declaratory relief. The appellant established a factual foundation for a defence of justification, and the respondent failed to show ongoing apprehension of harm or the absence of an adequate alternative remedy. The requirements for an interim interdict were not met, and damages w…

Source excerpt

• Interdict
• Defamation
• Justification Defence
• Motion Proceedings
• Separation Of Issues

Allie v Foodworld Stores Distribution Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (353/02)

Allie v Foodworld Stores Distribution Centre (Pty) Ltd and Others (353/02) [2003] ZASCA 151; [2004] 1 All SA 369 (SCA); 2004 (2) SA 433 (SCA) (2 December 2003)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

353/02

Judges

Navsa, Nugent, Conradie

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that credibility findings based on demeanour can be overturned where the record and probabilities justify it, and dismissed a defamation/iniuria appeal.

• Defamation
• Iniuria
• Truth And Public Interest
• Credibility Findings
• Justification Defence
• Truth-and-public-interest

Hix Networking Technologies CC v System Publishers (Pty) Ltd. and Another (222/95)

Hix Networking Technologies CC v System Publishers (Pty) Ltd. and Another (222/95) [1996] ZASCA 107; 1997 (1) SA 391 (SCA); [1996] 4 All SA 675 (A); (25 September 1996)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

222/95

Judges

Corbett, E M Grosskopf, Harms, Schutz, Plewmann

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the principles governing interim interdicts are well established and apply equally in cases involving alleged defamation. The appellant failed to establish a clear prima facie right to the relief sought, as the respondents set out a sustainable defence of truth and public benefit. The article in question did not contain statements that could reasonably be regarded as defamatory of the appellant in the eyes of right-thinking members of society. The court emphasised the importance of freedom of speech and cautioned against unduly restricting press freedom t…

Source excerpt

• Interim Interdict
• Defamation
• Freedom Of Expression
• Balance Of Convenience
• Justification Defence