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
Manqele v Baloyi Masango Inc Attorneys and Others (896/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 75 (12 August 2025)
The High Court dismissed a defamation claim over an investigative municipal report, finding qualified privilege, no unlawful publication, and no proof of malice.
Maketha v Industrial Development Corporation and Another (0597/2020) [2025] ZAGPJHC 425 (2 May 2025)
The High Court dismissed a former employee’s defamation, dignity, malicious proceedings, malicious prosecution, and loss-of-income claims arising from disciplinary charges.
Industrial Development Corporation of South Africa Limited v Artsolar (Pty) Ltd and Others (D1162/25) [2025] ZAKZDHC 16 (11 April 2025)
The court found that the IDC has a direct and substantial interest in the proceedings due to its statutory mandate and contractual relationship with Artsolar. The IDC's right to receive information, protected under section 16(1)(b) of the Constitution, and its statutory objectives under the Industrial Development Corporation Act, justify its joinder as a respondent. The interim order was overly broad, unjustifiably prohibiting disclosures to IDC that may be defensible under qualified privilege or statutory rights. The court held that reconsideration of the order was warranted to uphold IDC's…
Source excerpt
Khuza and Another v Khanyiwe (5009/2018) [2025] ZAECMHC 15; [2025] 2 All SA 463 (ECM) (4 March 2025)
The court found that the utterances made by the first appellant accusing the respondent of theft occurred in the context of an employment investigation into missing municipal refuse plastic bags. The first appellant was acting in his official capacity as superintendent, and the statements were made during meetings with supervisors and in the course of disciplinary proceedings. The court held that these circumstances constituted a qualified privileged occasion, negating any presumption of animus iniuriandi. The respondent pleaded guilty to gross dishonesty in the disciplinary process, further…
Source excerpt
J.W v B.T (2022/022689) [2025] ZAGPJHC 120 (17 February 2025)
The court found that the respondent's undertaking, given via his attorney, was contractually binding. Although the applicant sought a broader undertaking, the facts as a whole indicated acceptance of the original undertaking, particularly as no litigation was launched until the respondent breached it. The respondent's attempt to dissect the correspondence into discrete offers and counteroffers was rejected; the court applied an objective test and concluded that the respondent could not reasonably have believed he was free to defame the applicant after giving the undertaking. On the issue of q…
Source excerpt
Media 24 (Pty) Ltd and Another v Maluleke (HCA 05/2024) [2025] ZALMPTHC 1 (3 February 2025)
The appeal succeeded because the court a quo erred in finding that reporting the respondent as struck off the roll was false and defamatory. The order striking the respondent off the roll existed and was not a nullity; only its operation was suspended pending appeal. The publication was a fair and accurate report of court proceedings, protected by qualified privilege, and no malice was alleged or proved. The refusal to admit the supplementary answering affidavit was a misdirection, as the evidence was material and its exclusion resulted in substantial injustice. The respondent's claim for a d…
Source excerpt
Ndobe v Gibela Rail Consortium Rf (Pty) Ltd (4241/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1215 (27 November 2024)
Defamation claim over a disciplinary-hearing report dismissed for lack of publication and because the hearing was a privileged occasion.
Tjabadi v Eskom Holdings SOC Ltd (2024/039872) [2024] ZAGPJHC 664 (19 July 2024)
The High Court dismissed an unopposed defamation application against Eskom, finding the applicant’s own papers showed the statements were probably justified and privileged.
Du Toit v Becket and Another (8687/2023) [2024] ZAWCHC 56 (21 February 2024)
The court found that the statements published by the respondents in the Circular were defamatory of the applicant, damaging his reputation by suggesting misconduct, threats, and involvement in corruption. The respondents failed to discharge the onus of proving the truth of the statements or that their publication was for the public benefit or amounted to fair comment. The communications relied upon by the respondents did not substantiate the alleged threats or misconduct. The applicant established a clear right to protection of his reputation, a reasonable apprehension of future injury, and t…
Source excerpt
Body Corporate of Sunnyside Gardens v Perreira (A234/22) [2023] ZAGPPHC 1960 (28 November 2023)
High Court appeal in a defamation claim upheld R50,000 damages for a letter accusing a unit owner of misuse of electricity and nuisance.
Explore more
