South Africa Case Law

Xaba and Another v Mkhabela (A183/2017)

Xaba and Another v Mkhabela (A183/2017) [2019] ZAGPPHC 377 (15 August 2019)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A183/2017

Judges

R G Tolmay, N Ranchod, A Basson

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

• Defamation
• Reasonable Publication Defence
• Media Liability
• Damages For Defamation
• Public Interest Reporting

Du Plessis v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Another (26357/12)

Du Plessis v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Another (26357/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1112; 2016 (3) SA 178 (GP) (2 September 2015)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

26357/12

Judge

B R Tokota

High Court defamation case over a Daily Sun article about a market agent allegedly detaining a man in a cold room. The court found the article substantially false and awarded damages.

• Defamation
• Media Liability
• Public Interest Defence
• Damages For Injury To Reputation
• Media-law
• Freedom-of-expression

Moselakgomo v Media 24 Ltd and Others (2011/15359)

Moselakgomo v Media 24 Ltd and Others (2011/15359) [2014] ZAGPJHC 147 (17 July 2014)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2011/15359

Judge

C. J. Claassen

The court found that the article in question did not contain any statement of fact asserting the plaintiff's guilt or wrongdoing. The repeated use of the word 'allegations' and the explicit clarification that the plaintiff had not been found guilty made it clear to a reasonable reader that the article was reporting on an investigation and suspension, not on proven misconduct. The absence of any pleaded innuendo meant the plaintiff's case rested solely on whether the article was per se defamatory. Applying the principle from Modiri v Minister of Safety and Security, the court held that the art…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Media Liability
• Wrongful Publication

Kgothule v Dlamini and Others (380/2012)

Kgothule v Dlamini and Others (380/2012) [2014] ZAFSHC 40 (27 March 2014)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

380/2012

Judge

M H Rampai

The High Court refused absolution in a defamation suit over a newspaper article alleging corruption and political revolt, finding the plaintiff had a prima facie case.

• Defamation
• Media Liability
• Prima Facie Case
• Absolution From The Instance
• Media-liability
• Absolution-from-the-instance

Modiri v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (581/2010)

Modiri v Minister of Safety and Security and Others (581/2010) [2011] ZASCA 153; 2011 (6) SA 370 (SCA); [2012] 1 All SA 154 (SCA) (28 September 2011)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

581/2010

Judges

Brand JA, Maya JA, Mhlantla JA, Majiedt JA, Meer AJA

The SCA held that a newspaper article about police suspicions of the appellant was substantially true in its sting and published for public benefit.

• Defamation
• Media Liability
• Truth And Public Benefit
• Costs Award
• Reasonable Publication
• Qualified Privilege

Tsedu and Others v Lekota and Another (715/07)

Tsedu and Others v Lekota and Another (715/07) [2009] ZASCA 11; 2009 (4) SA 372 (SCA) ; [2009] 3 All SA 46 (SCA) (17 March 2009)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

715/07

Judges

Harms, Mthiyane, Nugent, Van Heerden, Leach

The Supreme Court of Appeal held a newspaper article defamatory and reduced damages to R100,000 each, rejecting the repetition defence and upholding costs.

• Defamation
• Quantification Of Damages
• Repetition Rule
• Media Liability
• Damages
• Media-law

Roberts v Johncom Media Investments Limited (8677/04)

Roberts v Johncom Media Investments Limited (8677/04) [2007] ZAWCHC 1 (8 January 2007)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

8677/04

Judge

Weinkove

The court found that the statements complained of were either not defamatory or, if defamatory, were substantially true and published in the public interest. The plaintiff's conduct, particularly in relation to the SABC complaint, was obsessive and vindictive, justifying the characterisation in the article. The defendant acted reasonably in publishing the researched article, relying on a careful and meticulous journalist. The plaintiff's contradictory and unconvincing evidence undermined his case. The court held that the defendant was not negligent and that the publication was lawful. Regardi…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Media Liability
• Reasonable Publication
• Fair Comment
• Truth And Public Benefit

Independent Newspapers Holdings Ltd and Others v Suliman (49/2003)

Independent Newspapers Holdings Ltd and Others v Suliman (49/2003) [2004] ZASCA 57; [2004] 3 All SA 137 (SCA); 2005 (7) BCLR 641 (SCA) (28 May 2004)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

49/2003

Judges

Marais, Scott, Mthiyane, Nugent, Ponnan

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the publication of the respondent's identity and photograph as a suspect in the Planet Hollywood bombing was defamatory and constituted an unlawful impairment of dignity. The court found that the sting of the articles lay in the allegation that the respondent, associated with Pagad, was arrested and prevented from leaving South Africa because he was suspected of complicity in the bombing. Although the police had genuine suspicion based on a tip-off, the publication of the respondent's identity prior to any formal charge or court appearance was not in the…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Dignity
• Invasion Of Privacy
• Freedom Of Expression
• Truth And Public Interest
• Media Liability