South Africa Case Law

Godongwana v Mdwaba (2023-125276)

Godongwana v Mdwaba (2023-125276) [2024] ZAGPJHC 46 (26 January 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023-125276

Judge

Dosio

The court found that the respondent's statements, made in various media interviews, were defamatory and false, as they accused the applicant of soliciting a bribe without any substantiated evidence. The respondent's reliance on hearsay from unnamed sources did not constitute a valid defence of truth or fair comment. The respondent failed to verify the information before publication, continued to repeat the allegations after being put on notice, and opposed the matter to the end, demonstrating animus iniurandi. The applicant established a clear right to protect his dignity and reputation, ongo…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Final Interdict
• Damages Quantification
• Constitutional Rights
• Retraction And Apology

Mpendulo v Groundup and Another (1050/2023)

Mpendulo v Groundup and Another (1050/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 263 (24 October 2023)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

1050/2023

Judge

J Cloete

High Court dismissed an application for defamation retraction and apology because damages claims remained alive and the dispute required oral evidence.

• Defamation
• Retraction And Apology
• Damages Claim
• Dispute Of Fact
• Costs Award
• Retraction-and-apology

Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another v Smith and Another (20117/2017)

Mountain Oaks Winery (Pty) Ltd and Another v Smith and Another (20117/2017) [2018] ZAWCHC 69 (11 June 2018)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

20117/2017

Judge

N P Boqwana

The court found that the statement published by the first respondent, that Mountain Oaks Winery was 'no longer organic', was factually incorrect and constituted a misrepresentation. The applicants had provided sufficient evidence of organic certification for their wines up to the 2010 vintage, and EU regulations did not render such wines non-organic after the regulatory change in 2012. The publication of the statement was injurious to the applicants' reputation and business interests, amounting to unlawful competition. The requirements for a final interdict were met: a clear right existed, in…

Source excerpt

• Unlawful Competition
• Injurious Falsehood
• Retraction And Apology
• Organic Certification
• Final Interdict