South Africa Case Law

Mantashe v Zuma (2025/094050)

Mantashe v Zuma (2025/094050) [2025] ZAGPJHC 697 (16 July 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2025/094050

Judge

M Van Nieuwenhuizen

The court found that the respondent's statements on TikTok and other social media platforms, alleging that the applicant received R40 million from ERP Mine intended for former mineworkers, were objectively defamatory. The respondent failed to provide credible evidence to substantiate his claims and did not report the matter to the police. The defence of truth and public benefit was unavailing, as the respondent relied on hearsay and unsupported affidavits. The statements imputed dishonesty and lack of integrity to the applicant, a government minister, and were widely disseminated, causing ong…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Social Media Publication
• Final Interdict
• Constitutional Dignity
• Damages Quantification

Mbiza and Another v Timati (2023/053714)

Mbiza and Another v Timati (2023/053714) [2025] ZAGPJHC 651 (27 June 2025)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

2023/053714

Judge

Dippenaar

The court found that the respondent made four Facebook posts after the interim interdict of 21 June 2023, at least two of which were defamatory and injurious to the applicants. The respondent's denials were bald, unsubstantiated, and failed to create bona fide factual disputes. The respondent did not provide any valid defence such as truth, fair comment, or privilege, nor did he discharge the evidential burden to cast reasonable doubt on willfulness and mala fide conduct. The court held that the respondent's conduct was in flagrant disregard of the court order and amounted to contempt beyond…

Source excerpt

• Civil Contempt Of Court
• Defamation
• Interim Interdict
• Social Media Publication
• Freedom Of Expression Limitation

Motsepe and Others v Motsepe and Another (2025/079559)

Motsepe and Others v Motsepe and Another (2025/079559) [2025] ZALMPPHC 106 (2 June 2025)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

2025/079559

Judge

Bresler

High Court urgent defamation interdict granted over social media posts accusing family members of serious wrongdoing.

• Defamation
• Interdictory Relief
• Dignity And Reputation
• Social Media Publication
• Urgent Application
• Constitutional Rights Infringement

Maxopani and Another v Semathu (3004/2025)

Maxopani and Another v Semathu (3004/2025) [2025] ZANWHC 86 (16 May 2025)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

3004/2025

Judge

Khan AJ

The High Court struck an urgent application from the roll after finding the applicants had not shown true urgency for interdictory relief over alleged defamatory social media posts.

• Urgent Interdict
• Defamation
• Social Media Publication
• Abuse Of Process
• Urgent-application
• Social-media

Mahlangu v Mokwatlo (5611/2024)

Mahlangu v Mokwatlo (5611/2024) [2024] ZAMPMHC 66 (4 December 2024)

Court

Middelburg High Court, Mpumalanga

Case number

5611/2024

Judge

Malangeni

The court found that the applicant failed to establish exceptional grounds for urgency. Although defamatory statements were published against the applicant, the harm suffered did not require immediate intervention, as the applicant could obtain substantial redress through ordinary court processes, such as a claim for damages. The circumstances differed materially from Hanekom v Zuma, where urgency was justified due to the high-profile nature and risk of violence. The applicant's position as a municipal manager did not elevate the matter to one of extreme urgency. Consequently, the application…

Source excerpt

• Urgency In Motion Proceedings
• Defamation
• Interdict
• Social Media Publication

Nelson Mandela University and Another v Diale (Reasons) (10638/2023)

Nelson Mandela University and Another v Diale (Reasons) (10638/2023) [2024] ZALMPPHC 176 (13 November 2024)

Court

Limpopo High Court, Polokwane

Case number

10638/2023

Judge

M Bresler

The High Court granted a final interdict restraining a former student from publishing defamatory statements about NMU, its vice chancellor, and staff.

• Final Interdict
• Defamation
• Social Media Publication
• Injuria
• Constitutional Rights Limitation
• Final-interdict

Munetsi v Madhuyu and Another (16255/2024)

Munetsi v Madhuyu and Another (16255/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 209 (6 August 2024)

Court

Western Cape High Court, Cape Town

Case number

16255/2024

Judge

P Farlam

The respondents breached section 11 of the Protection of Personal Information Act by publishing the applicant's cell phone number on social media platforms, constituting unlawful processing of personal information. This conduct also infringed the applicant's right to privacy under the common law and the Constitution. The publication of the video referring to the applicant as "evil" was defamatory and not justified by any defence advanced by the respondents. The applicant is entitled to a final interdict directing the removal of the offending broadcast and prohibiting future publication of his…

Source excerpt

• Protection Of Personal Information Act
• Right To Privacy
• Defamation
• Final Interdict
• Social Media Publication

Suleman v Ashoms (27341/2021)

Suleman v Ashoms (27341/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 696 (10 July 2024)

Court

South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Case number

27341/2021

Judge

Ford

The court found that the defendant's social media publications were defamatory of the plaintiff and his ministry. The plaintiff's uncontested evidence established that the statements were wrongful and damaging to his reputation. The court applied established principles of South African defamation law, noting that damages in such cases are compensatory rather than punitive and must be proportionate to the harm suffered. The court considered the plaintiff's standing, the widespread circulation of the defamatory statements, and the absence of any apology from the defendant. The claim for R10 mil…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Social Media Publication
• Quantum Of Damages
• Apology As Remedy

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

Itumele Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd t/a Interstate Bus Lines v Msabe (6450/2022)

Itumele Bus Lines (Pty) Ltd t/a Interstate Bus Lines v Msabe (6450/2022) [2023] ZAFSHC 392 (12 October 2023)

Court

Free State High Court, Bloemfontein

Case number

6450/2022

Judge

Berry, AJ

The court found that the respondent's statements on social media were defamatory, false, and unjustified. The respondent did not provide evidence or argument to support the truth of his allegations, nor did he justify them as being in the public interest. The applicant demonstrated that the statements, including those regarding bus safety and alleged corruption, were false and damaging to its reputation. The respondent's reliance on freedom of expression was rejected, as this right does not protect the publication of false and defamatory statements. The persistent publication of such statemen…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Final Interdict
• Freedom Of Expression
• Constitutional Rights
• Social Media Publication