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
Els and Another v eMedia Investments (Pty) Ltd (25902/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1164 (19 November 2024)
The High Court dismissed an urgent interdict against 방송 of footage of a businessman was acquired by ruse, finding no clear right and that damages were an adequate remedy.
Le Grellier and Another v Kamionsky and Another (2023-058876) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1286 (13 November 2023)
The High Court set aside an ex parte interim interdict restraining alleged defamation, holding that the applicants had not excluded possible defences or shown irreparable harm.
Sithole and Another v Media24 (Pty) Ltd and Others (2023/070374) [2023] ZAGPJHC 884 (8 August 2023)
The court found that the application was not urgent, as the alleged defamatory references to the applicants as 'Alex Mafia' have existed in the public domain for at least sixteen years, and the applicants failed to act promptly when the term was first used or in subsequent years. The relief sought would be ineffectual, as it would not remove existing references nor prevent third parties from using the nickname. The applicants did not pursue available remedies, such as the Press Council, nor did they provide a satisfactory explanation for their delay. The application was deemed an abuse of pro…
Source excerpt
Quandomanzi Investments (Pty) Ltd t/a SM Structures v Govender and Others (2023/43063) [2023] ZAGPJHC 516 (19 May 2023)
High Court dismissed an urgent application to stop a TV broadcast said to be defamatory about a construction company, finding no clear right or reasonable apprehension of harm.
Mtyhopo v South African Municipal Workers Union National Provident Fund (CCT 48/15) [2015] ZACC 32; 2015 (11) BCLR 1393 (CC) (1 October 2015)
The Constitutional Court found that the statements made by the applicant and published in The Herald were not defamatory of the respondent. The article's omission of the Johannesburg High Court's decision did not diminish the Fund's reputation in the eyes of reasonable readers. The reference to the R800,000 scandal was based on facts admitted by the Fund and constituted a legitimate grievance and comment, not actionable defamation. The Court held that the requirements for an interdict were not met, as there was no reasonable apprehension of future defamatory conduct and alternative remedies w…
Source excerpt
Print Media South Africa and Another v Minister of Home Affairs and Another (14343/2010) [2011] ZAGPJHC 149 (26 October 2011)
The High Court held that pre-publication classification for magazines and other publications under section 16(2)(a) of the Films and Publications Act was unconstitutional.
Midi Television (Pty) Ltd v Director of Public Prosecutions (Western Cape) (100/06) [2007] ZASCA 56; [2007] 3 All SA 318 (SCA); 2007 (9) BCLR 958 (SCA); 2007 (5) SA 540 (SCA); 2007 (2) SACR 493 (SCA) (18 May 2007)
The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the order compelling Midi Television to provide the documentary to the DPP prior to broadcast was not supported by any law, statute, or constitutional provision. The mere possibility or speculation of prejudice to the administration of justice does not justify prior restraint. The limitation of media freedom must be justified under section 36 of the Constitution, requiring demonstrable and substantial prejudice and a real risk thereof. No such risk was established on the evidence. The DPP's concerns were speculative, and there was no clear right entitling…
Source excerpt
Explore more
