Ledwaba v Minister of Home Affairs (378/2019) [2025] ZALMPPHC 157 (27 August 2025)

Case Note

Ledwaba v Minister of Home Affairs Case No 378/2010 (High Court of South Africa, Limpopo Division, Polokwane) 27 August 2025

Reportability

This judgment is reportable because it grapples with two matters of continuing public and legal importance: the scope of qualified privilege where the Department of Home Affairs disseminates information about deaths to other state organs, and the pleading and proof requirements for vicarious liability in defamation actions against the State.
The court’s analysis of section 29 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992 and its interaction with common-law defamation principles clarifies when a governmental communication of personal data is lawful. The decision furthermore underscores the procedural imperative that a plaintiff must both plead and prove that State employees acted within the course and scope of employment to hold the Minister vicariously liable.
Because similar factual scenarios frequently emerge when erroneous death registrations occur, the judgment has precedential value for future actions involving identity theft, administrative error, and reputational harm flowing from state databases.

Cases Cited

Khumalo and Others v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (Constitutional Court)
Borgin v De Villiers and Another 1980 (3) SA 556 (A)
De Waal v Ziervogel 1938 AD 112
Hassen v Post Newspapers (Pty) Ltd 1965 (3) SA 562 (W)
K v Minister of Safety and Security 2005 (6) SA 419 (Constitutional Court)

Legislation Cited

Births and Deaths Registration Act 51 of 1992
Promotion of Access to Information Act 2 of 2000

Rules of Court Cited

None expressly cited in the judgment.

HEADNOTE

Summary

The plaintiff, Mr Madimetja Johannes Ledwaba, sued the Minister of Home Affairs for defamation after Home Affairs issued and circulated a death certificate reflecting that the plaintiff had died on 9 October 2009. Pursuant to Home Affairs’ routine notification of deaths to National Treasury, the plaintiff’s salary was frozen, causing financial and personal hardship. The defendant pleaded qualified privilege, contending that the communication of death information to other state organs is mandated by statute and in the public interest. The court accepted this defence, found that the plaintiff failed to plead or prove vicarious liability in relation to any republication by Home Affairs’ employees, and dismissed the action with costs.

Key Issues

Whether issuing and circulating an erroneous death certificate constitutes defamatory publication.
Whether the statutory duty of Home Affairs to inform National Treasury and other departments of registered deaths affords the Minister a defence of qualified privilege.
Whether the plaintiff pleaded and proved the elements necessary to hold the Minister vicariously liable for republication by employees.

Held

Muller J held that the publication to National Treasury and the Department of Correctional Services occurred on a privileged occasion, that the requisite intention (animus iniuriandi) was rebutted, and that no liability arises in the absence of unlawfulness and intention. Furthermore, the plaintiff’s pleadings were fatally defective for failing to allege vicarious liability, and no evidence established defamatory publication by the defendant’s employees to third parties. The claim was therefore dismissed with costs.

THE FACTS

The plaintiff, a correctional services official in Polokwane, discovered on 15 June 2010 that his salary had not been paid. Upon enquiry it emerged that Home Affairs had recorded him as deceased, issuing a death certificate under his identity number and stating that he had died of natural causes in Johannesburg on 9 October 2009. As a consequence National Treasury blocked the identity number and notified the Department of Correctional Services, which in turn suspended his salary.
Home Affairs maintained that the identity number originally belonged to one Madimetja Josias Ledwaba. Over several years the plaintiff had applied for identity documents and effected a name change on that number despite warnings of duplication. When the real Madimetja Josias Ledwaba’s death was reported, the database reflected the plaintiff’s amended names, resulting in the erroneous certificate.
The plaintiff suffered financial loss, emotional distress, and humiliation among colleagues. He brought an action for defamation, alleging that the statement that he was deceased conveyed, inter alia, that he was fraudulent or dishonest.

THE ISSUES

The court had to decide, first, whether the publication of the death certificate and related notices constituted a wrongful and intentional defamation of the plaintiff. Secondly, it had to determine whether the Minister could rely on the defence of qualified privilege arising from a statutory duty. Thirdly, it had to consider whether liability could arise from republications to the plaintiff’s colleagues and whether the pleadings supported vicarious liability.

ANALYSIS

Muller J began by restating the common-law elements of defamation, citing Khumalo v Holomisa. Publication to a third party is presumed wrongful and intentional; the defendant bears the onus of rebuttal.
The court accepted that section 29 of the Births and Deaths Registration Act authorises the Director-General to furnish death information to other state departments for statutory purposes. Such communication, aimed at preventing the continued payment of salaries or grants to deceased persons, serves an important public interest. Accordingly, the occasion is privileged, and the defendant bears no liability absent proof of malice or improper motive. The plaintiff provided no such proof.
On republication, the court held that the only proven communications were between state organs and directly to the plaintiff. Publication to the plaintiff himself cannot ground defamation. As to alleged gossip among colleagues, the plaintiff neither identified the publishers nor linked them to Home Affairs. Under the principle in Hassen v Post Newspapers, every republication is a separate delict; no vicarious liability attaches unless specifically pleaded and proved. The plaintiff’s particulars of claim were silent on course-and-scope allegations and thus defective, as stressed with reference to K v Minister of Safety and Security and Amler’s Precedents of Pleadings.

REMEDY

The court dismissed the plaintiff’s action in its entirety and ordered him to pay the defendant’s costs.

LEGAL PRINCIPLES

A communication by Home Affairs to another state organ regarding a registered death is prima facie privileged when done in fulfilment of statutory duties and the public interest.
Qualified privilege, once established, shifts the burden to the plaintiff to prove malice or knowledge of falsity; absent such proof, the defence succeeds notwithstanding the falsity of the statement.
To hold a Minister liable for defamatory republication by officials, a plaintiff must expressly plead and prove that the officials acted within the course and scope of their employment; failure to do so is fatal.
Publication to the plaintiff alone is insufficient to found a defamation claim; there must be publication to at least one third party.
Erroneous administrative actions by state departments, though potentially harmful, will not attract delictual liability for defamation if they occur on a privileged occasion without animus iniuriandi.