SAFLII Note: Certain personal/private details of parties or witnesses have been redacted from this document in
compliance with the law and SAFLII Policy
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
CASE NUMBER: 2025 -079559
(1) REPORTABLE: YES/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO THE JUDGES: YES/NO
(3) REVISED.
DATE : 2 June 2025
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
ELIZABETH MORONGOA MOTSEPE
IDENTITY NUMBER: 6[...]
1ST APPLICANT
MAGDELINE MOTLATJO MOTSEPE
IDENTITY NUMBER: 9 [...]
2ND APPLICANT
MOGALE KLAAS MOTSEPE
IDENTITY NUMBER: 9 [...]
3RD APPLICANT
-and-
ESTHER MOTSEPE
IDENTITY NUMBER: 9 [...]
1ST RESPONDENT
CHRISTINA MATHUKWANE LETSHELELE
(Neé MOTSEPE)
IDENTITY NUMBER: 9[...] 2ND RESPONDENT
Delivered : 2 June 2025
This judgment was handed down electronically by circulation to
the parties’ legal representatives by e -mail and by uploading on
the Caselines system . The date and time for hand down of the
judgment is deemed to be 2 June 2025 at 3:00 PM .
Date heard : 26 May 2025
Coram : Bresler AJ
JUDGMENT
BRESLER AJ:
Introduction:
[1] This case came before Court on the 26th of May 2025 as an urgent application.
The Applicants apply for interdictory and ancillary relief against the
Respondents. The Applicants case is premised on the allegation that the
Respondents are involved in a public campaign to publish defamatory statements
on social media against the Applicants with the sole aim to defame the
Applicants.
[2] The Applicants submit that their constitutional rights are infringed and that the
infringement is of an ongoing nature. As such, it renders the matter urgent.
[3] Evidence was presented that the conduct of the Respondents have escalated to
the point where the Applicants have reported it to the SAPS and a formal letter of
demand was addressed to them. This only resulted in a renewed and intense
attack on the Applicants on socia l media.
[4] Having regard to the nature of the relief applied for, this Court ruled that the
matter warrants the attention of the urgent cour t and the parties accordingly
addressed the Court on the merits. Reasons were provided in Court and will not
be re peated herein.
Factual synopsis:
[5] The First and Second Respondents are extended family members of the
Applicants. From the affidavits before court, it is evident that, at the heart of this
matter, lies a contentious and ongoing family dispute over a deceased estate.
As is often the case, parties do not see eye to eye once it comes to the
administration of the estate.
[6] The First Respondent appears to have a history of approaching the Applicants
with antagonistic and , to a large extent, unsubstantiated allegations relating to
their involvement in the administration of the deceased estate of the Late Klaas
Mogale Motsepe, who is the deceased husband of the First Applicant. The
acrimonious relationship between the respective parties have lead to inter alia
Protection orders and criminal charges pending between the parties.
[7] On the 11th of May 2025, the First and Second Respondent caused several
derogatory and defamatory statements to be published on Facebook and
TikTok specifically mentioning the Applicants and tagging the Second and Third
Applicants. In these statements, the Applicant s were inter alia accused of
practicing witchcraft , engaging in unlawful business practices, murder and being
complicit in crimes of a sexual nature. Numerous videos were released by the
First and Second Respondent on the said date and on several dates th ereafter.
[8] The Applicants have reported the incidents to the South African Police Services
on the 12th of May 2025. On the same day, instructions were given to their
attorneys to institute legal proceedings against the Respondents. This resulted
in the current proceedings before court.
[9] In retaliation and on the 12th of May 2025, the First Respondent published
multiple further statements on TikTok . The Applicants thus caused their
attorneys to address a letter of demand to the Respondents on the 13th of May
2025. On the same day , the First Respondent published further statements on
TikTok explicitly stating that she w ill not abide by the Letter of Demand.
[10] The Applicants submit that the First and Second Respondent will continue to
unleash more personal insults and threats unless being met with judicial
intervention.
[11] In answer to the Applicants’ allegations , the First Respondent essentially took
the ‘tit for tat’ view. According to the First Respondent her conduct is in
retaliation of the abusive and defamatory actions of the Applicants towards
herself, her mother and her brother. She therefore labels the said videos and
comments as a form of self defence and fair com ment. During the proceedings,
the First Respondent remained adamant that she was attacked in public and
has the right to respond on a public forum. She also reiterated that the
statements were the truth. No corroborating evidence was presented to the
Court pertaining to the alleged abuse during her childhood or any of the other
derogatory remarks made by her.
[12] The Second Respondent denies being involved in the alleged actions. She
states that the First Respondent is the holder of the Facebook and TikT ok
accounts. Notwithstanding the said denial in general, she does concede in her
affidavit that her voice note was published ‘without her consent’. It presupposes
that she did, at one stage or another, publish defamatory statements about the
Applicants. There is in any event no evidence as to how the voice note came
into the possession of the First Respondent if not provided to her by the Second
Respondent. This constitutes publ ication. One does not make a voice note
without intending to address this voice note to a third party. It was in any event
not the case of the Second Respondent that this was a voice note made in
private and without any third party having access thereto.
Issues that require determination:
[13] This Court is only called upon to determine if defamation was established and, if
so, the appropriateness of the relief prayed for in the Notice of Motion.
The Applicable Legal Principles:
[14] It is common cause between the parties that First and Second Respondent
conveyed information which information was inter alia published by the First
Respondent on her TikTok account .
[15] In order to succeed , the Applicant s need to show that the publication of the
statements was wrongful. The Respondent s may dispel wrongfulness by
proving either truthfulness or public interest1.
[16] In the unreported decision of Godongwana v Perry -Mason Mdwaba2 the
following was stated:
[37] The requirements for defamation are trite. It requires a twofold
enquiry. The first is to ask whether the meaning was defamatory and the
second is to decide whether the meaning so attributed to the words ‘is
likely to injure the good esteem in which the plai ntiff was held by the
reason able or average person to whom the statement was published.’
The meaning of the statement is determined objectively by the legal
construct of the reasonable reader and is not a matter on which evidence
may be led.
[38] ...
[39] It is clear to this Court that there can be no doubt that the effect of
these statements would in the eyes of the reasonable reader diminish the
esteem in which any person about whom they were made was held by
others in the community.
[40] Once the statement has been shown to be defamatory, it is
presumed that that the statement was published wrongfully and with the
intention to injure.
1 Neethling v Du Preez; Neethling v The Weekly Mail 1994 (1) SA 708 (A) and National Media
Limited v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA)
2 2024 JDR 0206 (GJ)
[41] It accordingly falls upon the respondent to produce facts and
evidence which would exclude wrongfu lness and intention to injure.
[42] The respondent contends that he merely disclosed what was
conveyed to him and that he never of his own volition, accused the
applicant of corruption. This Court disagrees.
[43] From the exchange of words during the N ewzroom Afrika interview
the suggestion of corruption and the involvement of the applicant is clear.
[44] The contention that there is no thread of evidence to suggest the
statements are ongoing is rejected by this Court as there are five
instances of re petition of these statements on YouTube.
[45] The respondent’s contention that the applicant seeks to interdict him
from events that have already taken place is equally misplaced, in that in
terms of prayer four of the notice of motion, no retraction has taken place
as yet. In addition, prayer five and six has also not happened and is a
future event. It is clear that the declaratory order pertains to past conduct
and the interdict pertains to future conduct.
[46] In the answering affidavit the responden t does not specifically
address any of the legally recognisable grounds which ordinarily negate
wrongfulness in the delict of defamation. There is no mention of any
defences in the respondent’s heads of argument either.
[47] The defences in law available to the respondent are truth and public
benefit, absence of animus iniuriandi and fair comment.
[17] There is no question in this Court’s mind that the statements made by the First
and Second Respondent are of a defamatory nature. In this Court’s view,
neither of the Respondents have shown an absence of animus iniuriandi or fair
comment. Both Respondents displays an attitude that the attac k on the
Applicants are warranted because of alleged conduct in the past. This conduct
is not corroborated by any evidence. Even if there is evidence of abusive
conduct in the past, it does not warrant the defamatory statements made by the
First and Seco nd Respondents. Social media is in any event not the
appropriate forum to publish alleged criminal activities.
[18] To succeed with interdictory relief, it is trite law that the Applicants must
establish a clear right , an injury suffered or reasonably apprehended and that
no other suitable remedy are available to them.
[19] The Applicants have a clear right to protect their dignity and reputation. The
injury is evident from the nature of the defamatory remarks and the wi despread
publication thereof. It is also evident that the Respondents feel that they are
entitled to continue their conduct. As to the availability of an alternative remedy,
it must be borne in mind that it must be shown to be a suitable remedy that
would yield the same, or a similar result.
[20] In Hix Networking Technologies v System Publishers (Pty) Ltd and
Another3 the court stated that:
The appropriate stage for this consideration would in most cases be the
point at which the balance of convenience is determined. It is at that stage
that consideration should be given to the fact that the person allegedly
defamed (if this be the case) will , if the interdict is refused, nonetheless
have a cause of action which will result in an award of damages . This
should be weighed against the possibility, on the other hand, that a denial
of a right to publish is likely to be the end of the matter as far as the press
3 1997 (1) SA 391 (A)
is concerned. And in the exercise of its discretion in granting or refusing
an interim interdict, regard should be had inter alia to the strength of the
applicant's case; the seriousness of the defamation; the difficulty a
respondent has in p roving, in the limited time afforded to it in cases of
urgency, the defence which it wishes to raise and the fact that the order
may, in substance though not in form, amount to a permanent interdict.
[21] In the decision of Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Manuel4 the
Supreme Court of Appeal stated at [89]:
[89] In circumstances where the applicant were obdurate, and where the
integrity of an institution of state was being undermined on the basis of Mr
Manuel’s alleged corrupt and nepotistic conduct, an award of damages, in
due course, could hardly be said to be a v iable and compelling alternative
to an interdict prohibiting further publication.
[22] Likewise in this case, this Court is of the view that a potential damages claim is
not a viable and compelling alternative to interdicting the conduct complained
about. The Respondents do not show any remorse. They feel that their
conduct is acceptable. On this basis, interdictory relief must be granted to avoid
the continued
[23] The Applicants are therefore entitled to the relief as claimed in the Notice of
Motion.
Costs:
[24] There is no reason why the cost order should not follow the outcome of the
proceedings. The Applicants are therefore entitled to their costs as well.
4 2021 (3) SA 425 (SCA)
Having regard to the nature of the proceedings, the urgency of the matter and
the importance of the matter to the parties, costs to counsel is warranted on
Scale B.
Order:
[25] In the result the following order is made:
25.1 The applicants’ non-compliance with and deviation from the
uniform rules of court in respect of the forms and service provided
for in such rules is condoned and the application is heard as one
of urgency in terms of rule 6(12)
25.2 The First and Second Respondent is inte rdicted and restrained
from:
25.2.1 publishing or causing to publish any defamatory
statements regarding or concerning the
Applicants on WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter (X),
Instagra m, TikTok or any other social media
platform within the Respondents’ direct or
indirect control ;
25.2.2 posting and / or publishing any photos or videos
of the Applicants on WhatsApp, Facebook, Twitter
(X), Instagram, TikTok or any other social media
platform within the Respondents ’ direct or
indirect control;
25.2.3 harassing, sending messages or contacting the
Applicants to threaten or intimidate the
Applicants in any manner, whether directly or
indirectly .
25.3 The First Respondent is directed to retract and remove from her
Facebook and TikTok social media accounts and / or any other
social media account(s) under her direct or indirect control :
25.3.1 The posts dated 10 May 2025;
25.3.2 The posts dated 11 May 2025;
25.3.3 The posts dated 12 May 2025;
25.3.4 The posts dated 13 May 2025 and any other subsequent
posts made in relation to the Applicants which are of a
defamatory nature.
25.4 The Respondents are directed to furnish a full unconditional
apology, within 24 ( twenty -four) hours from the date of this order ,
for the publication of the defamatory statements made against the
Applicants contained on Facebook and TikTok and to publish such
apologies on all the ir social media platforms.
25.5 In the event that the Respondents refuses to apologise and / or
publish the apologies stated above, an order is granted for the
immediate closure of the Facebook and TikTok accounts under the
name Esther Motsepe. This order is to be submitted to Facebook,
TikTok or any company administering and / or handling the social
media accounts to immediately close and restrict all access to the
said social media accounts.
25.6 The First and Second Respondent, jointly and severally, are
ordered to pay the Applicants costs on party and party scale, such
costs to include the costs of counsel on Scale B.
M BRESLER AJ
ACTING JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT,
LIMPOPO DIVISION, POLOKWANE
APPEARANCES :
FOR THE APPLICANT S : Adv. RC Mathevula
INSTRUCTED BY : Espag Magwai Attorneys
Polokwane
lit3@espagmagwai.co.za
FOR THE FIRST RESPONDENT : In person
esthermotsepe129@gmail.com
FOR THE SECOND RESPONDENT : Adv. JLH Letsoalo
INSTRUCTED BY : JK Depanyekga Attorneys
Polokwane
khullydeps@gmail.com