High Court of South Africa Delivers Judgment in Defamation Case Against Social Media Personalities

By Court Reporter | ZimEye | Cape Town, South Africa – In the matter before the High Court of South Africa, Western Cape Division, case number 16255/2024, the court has rendered a judgment against the defendants, Better Kudakwashe Madhuyu and Kylie Tonsani, known by their social media pseudonyms Tytie and Kiki, for defamation.

The plaintiff, Moreboys Munetsi, represented by Advocate Isiah Mureriwa and instructed by S.E. Kanyoka Attorneys (Pretoria) c/o PVW Inc. Attorneys, Observatory, brought a suit alleging that the defendants disseminated defamatory statements on their social media platforms, characterizing him as “evil” and a “liar.” Furthermore, it was alleged that the defendants disclosed the plaintiff’s personal mobile number to their substantial online audience, resulting in harassment.

The court, presided over by Acting Judge P. Farlam, found in favor of the plaintiff. The ruling emphasized the defendants’ failure to comply with the ordinary rules relating to forms and timeframes, thus granting condonation to the plaintiff and enrolling the matter as one of urgency.

Court Order:

1. Condonation: The court grants condonation to the applicant for non-compliance with the ordinary rules relating to forms and timeframes, recognizing the urgency of the matter.
2. Removal of Content: The respondents are directed to remove the live broadcast published on 17 July 2024 from all their social media platforms. Additionally, any video or message containing the plaintiff’s picture and personal cell phone number must be removed from such platforms. The respondents are further restrained from publishing the plaintiff’s personal information without his consent.
3. Costs: The respondents are ordered to pay the costs of the application on a party and party basis, with counsel’s costs being taxed on Scale A.

The full quote from the judgment order states:
“I accordingly make the following order:

1. Condonation is granted to the applicant for non-compliance with the ordinary rules relating to forms and timeframes, and the matter is enrolled as one of urgency.
2. The respondents are directed to remove the live broadcast published on 17 July 2024 from all their social media platforms, and also remove any video or message containing the applicant’s picture and cell phone number from such platforms, as well as refrain from publishing the applicant’s personal information without his consent.
3. The respondent is to pay the costs of the application on a party and party basis, with counsel’s costs being taxed on Scale A.”

The judgment underlines the court’s stance on the propagation of falsehoods and the consequential harm to an individual’s reputation, aligning with principles established in previous defamation cases such as Holomisa v Argus Newspapers Ltd (1996). The ruling also reflects the court’s commitment to safeguarding personal information, resonating with broader legal principles on privacy and defamation.

For respondents, Mr. Madhuyu appeared in person, underscoring the importance of legal representation in complex defamation suits. The ruling serves as a critical reminder of the legal repercussions of defamatory conduct and the necessity of adhering to legal protocols in social media communications.