South Africa Case Law

Koko v Special Investigative Unit and Others (2023/031211)

Koko v Special Investigative Unit and Others (2023/031211) [2025] ZAGPPHC 715 (18 June 2025)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

2023/031211

Judge

de Vos

The Court found that Mr Koko failed to establish a direct and substantial legal interest in the subject matter or order of the review proceedings. The order and judgment made no reference to him, imposed no obligations, and did not affect his rights. The authorities cited, including NDPP v Zuma, B Xulu & Partners, Central Energy Fund, Siyangena Technologies, Deputy Public Protector, and Lebea, confirm that reputational harm or adverse allegations in the reasoning do not suffice for intervention. The order operates in rem, binding all parties, but does not entitle uncited parties to intervene…

Source excerpt

• Intervention Application
• Direct And Substantial Interest
• Order In Rem
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Reputational Harm
• Costs Order

ZA Online Store (Pty) Ltd ta ISTORE v Derek and Others (2025/081458)

ZA Online Store (Pty) Ltd ta ISTORE v Derek and Others (2025/081458) [2025] ZAGPJHC 734 (9 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/081458

Judge

WJ du Plessis

The court found that the applicant had no contractual relationship with the first respondent and had paid its contractor in full. The respondents' campaign, including false statements and threats of protest at business premises and the CEO's residence, was calculated to apply reputational pressure and coerce the applicant into intervening in a third-party dispute. The ongoing publication of false claims on platforms lacking journalistic accountability perpetuated reputational harm. The court held that the applicant's right to reputation was infringed, that injury was ongoing and reasonably ap…

Source excerpt

• Final Interdict
• Defamation
• Urgent Application Rule 6 12
• Freedom Of Expression
• Reputational Harm
• Press Code And Media Accountability

Nisamoseki Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd t/a Nisa Willckx Interiors v Sithole (2023 - 101760)

Nisamoseki Trading Enterprise (Pty) Ltd t/a Nisa Willckx Interiors v Sithole (2023 - 101760) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1217 (26 October 2023)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023 - 101760

Judge

Moorcroft

The High Court granted an urgent interdict against an Instagram post calling a furniture business fraudulent, finding likely reputational harm and no adequate remedy in damages.

• Defamation
• Interdict
• Social Media Publication
• Reputational Harm
• Social-media-defamation
• Urgent-application

Prudential Authority of the South African Reserve Bank v Msiza and Another

Prudential Authority of the South African Reserve Bank v Msiza and Another [2023] ZAGPPHC 313; A294/2021 (2 May 2023)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

A294/2021

Judges

Swanepoel, Van Niekerk, Van der Westhuizen

The High Court held that an investigative report on the VBS matter was not reviewable under PAJA, but was reviewable under legality because its adverse findings were irrational without audi.

• Financial Sector Regulation Act
• Procedural Fairness
• Audi Alteram Partem
• Legality Review
• Commission Of Enquiry
• Reputational Harm

Maliza v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (4086/2019)

Maliza v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (4086/2019) [2023] ZAECMHC 5; [2023] 4 BLLR 377 (ECM) (2 February 2023)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha

Case number

4086/2019

Judge

Rugunanan

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the second defendant made the alleged defamatory statement. The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and not supported by his own witnesses. The documentary evidence and the testimony of the defendants indicated that concerns about the plaintiff's possible involvement in robberies were communicated as part of an investigation, not as a direct accusation or defamatory statement. The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof required in civil matters, and the probabilities favoured the defendants' versi…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Reputational Harm
• Onus Of Proof
• Publication
• Wrongfulness
• Intention

Annex Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Others v Bank of Baroda (52590/2017)

Annex Distribution (Pty) Ltd and Others v Bank of Baroda (52590/2017) [2017] ZAGPPHC 639 (9 October 2017)

Court

North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria

Case number

52590/2017

Judge

Makgoka

The court found that the applicants had established a prima facie right to reasonable notice before termination of their banking relationships, and that the bank's notices may not have afforded sufficient time under the circumstances. The applicants demonstrated that closure of their accounts would cause irreparable harm to their businesses and employees, while the bank's claim of reputational harm was speculative and unsupported by concrete evidence. The balance of convenience favoured the applicants, given the potential impact on thousands of workers and the absence of alternative remedies.…

Source excerpt

• Banker Customer Relationship
• Interim Interdict
• Reasonable Notice
• Public Policy In Contract
• Reputational Harm
• Urgent Application Procedure