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
Sibiya v Morgan-Mashale (6342/2024) [2025] ZAFSHC 232 (8 August 2025)
High Court defamation case over social media posts alleging crime-scene tampering and bribery; the court found plausible defences and discharged the rule nisi.
Media 24 (Pty) Ltd v Nhleko and Another (109/22) [2023] ZASCA 77 (29 May 2023)
The Supreme Court of Appeal upheld an amendment to a plea in a defamation case, finding the high court applied the wrong principles and demanded justification of the article rather than the pleaded defamation.
Katz v Welz and Another (22440/2014) [2021] ZAWCHC 76 (26 April 2021)
The High Court held Noseweek defamed attorney Leonard Katz by alleging fraud, fake court orders, and double billing, and awarded damages and costs.
Gqubule-Mbeki and Another v Economic Freedom Fighters and Another (30143/2018) [2020] ZAGPJHC 2 (24 January 2020)
The court found that the respondents published statements that were defamatory of the applicants, branding them as collaborators with the apartheid regime without any evidence. The respondents failed to verify the allegations, did not afford the applicants an opportunity to respond, and persisted in publishing the statements despite knowing the allegations were unsubstantiated. The reasonable publication and fair comment defences were rejected, as the respondents did not meet the requirements for either: the publication was not justified, and the opinions were not based on true facts. The app…
Source excerpt
Mayula Procurement and Property Management (Pty) Ltd and Another v Kopane and Others (1885/2019) [2019] ZAFSHC 126 (1 August 2019)
High Court defamation interdict application dismissed. The court held the political statements were made in a public-interest context and the applicants lacked a clear right.
Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Manuel; In Re: Manuel v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others (13349/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 172 (18 June 2019)
The High Court dismissed leave to appeal in a defamation case, finding the statement false and defamatory, interdictable, and the R500,000 award reasonable.
Mangena v Independent Newspapers (Pty) Limited and Others (68142/2016) [2019] ZAGPPHC 320 (27 May 2019)
The court found that the publication of the plaintiff's image in association with a report about a councillor's romantic relationship with a minor was defamatory, as it was likely to diminish the plaintiff's reputation among various classes of persons, including his community and learners at his school. The defendants failed to take reasonable steps to verify the identity of the person in the image, relying solely on a community Facebook page without further checks, which constituted negligence. The Bogoshi defence of reasonable publication was rejected. The harm to the plaintiff's reputation…
Source excerpt
Soyi v Daily Dispatch and Another (EL448/2015, ECD848/2015) [2018] ZAECELLC 9 (20 September 2018)
Defamation claim over a Daily Dispatch article succeeded. The court rejected truth/public benefit and reasonable publication defences and awarded R20,000.
Katz v Welz and Another (22440/2014) [2017] ZAWCHC 135 (7 November 2017)
The court held that discovery in defamation actions is governed by a broad test of relevance, sourced in the issues raised on the pleadings. While the defendants are not required to set out all sources relied upon for the published articles, their defence of fair comment and reasonable publication makes the record of the plaintiff's liquidation and sequestration applications relevant. The request for discovery is not a fishing expedition, provided it is limited to the period prior to publication (July 2012 to July 2014). Statements of account are discoverable, but the plaintiff may redact pri…
Source excerpt
Media 24 Limited t.a Daily Sun and Another v Du Plessis (127/2016) [2017] ZASCA 33 (29 March 2017)
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
Explore more
