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
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.
Lephoi v Ramakarane (4474/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 222 (7 June 2023)
The High Court granted leave to appeal in a defamation matter, finding reasonable prospects that the trial court may have overlooked the context and prior judgment.
Ramakarane v Lephoi (4474/2020) [2023] ZAFSHC 133 (21 April 2023)
The High Court held that radio statements calling the plaintiff corrupt were defamatory. Truth and public-interest defences failed, and damages plus an apology were ordered.
Malema v Rawula (139/2020) [2021] ZASCA 88 (23 June 2021)
Appeal in a defamation dispute over a Facebook post alleging EFF financial misconduct and VBS-related funding. The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal.
Malema v Rawula (1204/2019) [2019] ZAECPEHC 83 (12 November 2019)
The court found that the applicant failed to establish entitlement to a final interdict and damages via motion proceedings. The respondent, though a layperson, raised defences of truth, public interest, fair comment, and privilege, and indicated that supporting evidence could be produced if given access to relevant records and witnesses. The court held that there was a material dispute of fact which could not be resolved on the papers, and that the applicant had an adequate alternative remedy in the form of an action for damages. Furthermore, the allegedly defamatory Facebook post had already…
Source excerpt
South African Human Rights Commission obo South African Jewish Board of Deputies v Masuku and Another (EQ01/2012) [2017] ZAEQC 1; [2017] 3 All SA 1029 (EqC, J); 2018 (3) SA 291 (GJ) (29 June 2017)
The court found that the impugned statements made by the first respondent, Bongani Masuku, were directed at the Jewish community and amounted to hate speech as defined in section 10(1) of the Equality Act. The statements were hurtful, harmful, incited harm, and propagated hatred, and were not protected by the right to freedom of expression under section 16 of the Constitution. The court rejected the respondents' defences of truth, fair comment, and public interest, holding that these are not permissible under the Equality Act in the context of hate speech. The context and content of the state…
Source excerpt
Du Plessis v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Another (26357/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1112; 2016 (3) SA 178 (GP) (2 September 2015)
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.
Explore more
