South Africa Case Law

Akani Retirement Fund Administrators Proprietary Limited and Another v Independent Media Proprietary Limited and Others (58023/2021)

Akani Retirement Fund Administrators Proprietary Limited and Another v Independent Media Proprietary Limited and Others (58023/2021) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1478 (29 December 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

58023/2021

Judge

Fisher

The court held that the evidence sought to be admitted, namely findings from the Moropa judgment and the FSCA press release, is relevant to the determination of wrongfulness and the context of the alleged defamatory statements. The rule in Hollington v Hewthorn does not operate as a blanket exclusion in these circumstances, particularly as the findings in Moropa pertain to events predating the publications in question and are probative of the applicants' reputation and the respondents' defences. The evidence is admissible at this interlocutory stage, and its exclusion would prejudice the resp…

Source excerpt

• Admissibility Of Evidence
• Defamation
• Media Privilege
• Wrongfulness
• Reputation
• Motion Proceedings

Katz v Welz and Another (22440/2014)

Katz v Welz and Another (22440/2014) [2021] ZAWCHC 76 (26 April 2021)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

22440/2014

Judge

N Mayosi

The High Court held Noseweek defamed attorney Leonard Katz by alleging fraud, fake court orders, and double billing, and awarded damages and costs.

• Defamation
• Damages For Defamation
• Media Privilege
• Fair Comment
• Truth And Public Benefit
• Reasonable Publication

Jacobs Safaris CC v Bloodlions NPC and Others (7187/2019P)

Jacobs Safaris CC v Bloodlions NPC and Others (7187/2019P) [2020] ZAKZPHC 31 (30 July 2020)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg

Case number

7187/2019P

Judge

Koen

The court found that the applicant failed to identify, in its founding affidavit, the specific scenes or narrative in the documentary that allegedly defamed it, which is a fatal defect. Even considering the content identified in reply and argument, the documentary does not expressly or impliedly state that the applicant is involved in canned lion hunting or the lion bone trade. The reasonable viewer, in context, would not necessarily draw the inference that the applicant participates in such activities, especially given the explanations provided by the applicant's staff in the film. Furthermo…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Final Interdict
• Media Privilege
• Fair Comment
• Freedom Of Expression
• Publication

Soyi v Daily Dispatch and Another (EL448/2015, ECD848/2015)

Soyi v Daily Dispatch and Another (EL448/2015, ECD848/2015) [2018] ZAECELLC 9 (20 September 2018)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court

Case number

EL448/2015 / ECD848/2015

Judge

M.J. Lowe

Defamation claim over a Daily Dispatch article succeeded. The court rejected truth/public benefit and reasonable publication defences and awarded R20,000.

• Defamation
• Media Privilege
• Reasonable Publication
• Truth And Public Benefit
• General Damages
• Media-law

Media 24 Limited t.a Daily Sun and Another v Du Plessis (127/2016)

Media 24 Limited t.a Daily Sun and Another v Du Plessis (127/2016) [2017] ZASCA 33 (29 March 2017)

Court

Supreme Court of Appeal

Case number

127/2016

Judges

Cachalia, Petse, Swain, Mbha, Gorven

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the article published by the appellants was not substantially true and contained several material inaccuracies that contributed to its defamatory sting. The appellants failed to verify the information provided by their sources and did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, prioritizing speed of publication over journalistic diligence. The defence of truth and public interest was rejected as the article was not substantially true, and the defence of media privilege was also dismissed due to the lack of reasonable verification. The award of damages…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Media Privilege
• Reasonable Publication
• Damages Assessment
• Truth And Public Interest

Thaba v Haffajee and Another (49831/11)

Thaba v Haffajee and Another (49831/11) [2016] ZAGPPHC 3 (5 January 2016)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

49831/11

Judge

Hughes

A defamation claim failed where special damages were not causally linked to publication and the newspaper proved the article was reasonably published.

• Defamation
• Aquilian Action
• Actio Iniuriarum
• Media Privilege
• Reasonableness Of Publication
• Media-privilege