2
seeks final declaratory and interdictory relief against the respondent. The
applicant alleges that the respondent is continuing to publish false and
defamatory statements about him. The applicant alleges that these false
and defamatory statements relate to unfounded allegations made by the
respondent about him in various publications. The respondent alleges
that the applicant received R40 Million from a company called East Rand
Proprietary Mines (“ERP Mine” or “the Mine”), which was meant for miners
previously employed by the Mine.
[2] The applicant alleges that the false and defamatory statements were
published without probable evidence and without affording him with
sufficient opportunity to provide his side of the story. He argues that these
are serious allegations which impugn on his constitutional right to dignity1
and the reputation of the office that he holds. The applicant further alleges
that the conduct of the respondent threatens his safety as people who
worked for the Mine are made to believe that he has received and retained
R40 million from ERP Mine, which belongs to them.
[3] The applicant denies these alleged false and defamatory allegations. The
applicant states that to date, the respondent has failed to provide
justification for the publication. Instead, he is continuing with the
publication of these alleged false and defamatory statements and
threatening the applicant with violence.
[4] The applicant states that after President Ramaphosa was elected as the
President of South Africa in February 2018, he appointed the applicant to
his cabinet as the Minister of Mineral Resources and Energy. The
portfolio is now referred to as Mineral and P etroleum Resources and he
is still serving as the Minister. The applicant states that he is also the
1 Section 10 of the South African Constitution (Act 108 of 1996) guarantees the right to human
dignity. It states that everyone has inherent dignity and the right to have their dignity respected
and protected. This section is fundamental to the protection of individuals within the South
African legal framework.
3
Chairperson of the ANC. He alleges that the spurious and malicious
allegations lower his standing both in the eyes of the ANC members and
society. The applicant states that the respondent’s allegations that he
received R40 million from the ERP Mine are malicious, hurtful and
damaging to his reputation more so that the respondent does not intend
to lay a criminal charge against him or provide evidence for such
allegations.
[5] The applicant states that these continuous publications by the respondent
are not only false and defamatory, but they are negatively impacting the
office that he holds. For this reason he inter alia seeks orders:
[5.1] declaring that the statements published are false and
defamatory;
[5.2] directing the respondent to publish a retraction on the terms
which are set out in the Notice of Motion;
[5.3] an interdict prohibiting the respondent from repeating the
alleged defamatory statements;
[5.4] an order interdicting the respondent from trying to gain entrance
to his workplace without authorisation – the applicant does not
persist with this relief as is also apparent from his draft Court
order;
[5.5] declaring that the respondent is liable to pay damages to him.
[6] The matter is opposed. The respondent denies the allegations of
defamation.
4
BACKGROUND
The Tiktok video published on 24 May 2025
[7] On or about the 24 th of May 2025 the respondent published statements
on Tiktok which the applicant argues are false and defamatory.
“Hello South Africans, this is Zakhele Zuma, the Leader of the
Land and Minerals Organisation. And today I’m in the East
Rand. Eh as you can see here I’ve got my mothers and fathers,
they were working for the ERP Mine and it was closed down in
1999 but th ey never received their money. Gwede Mantashe,
eehm he took over the case and then the money was paid to
Gwede Mantashe, over R40 million but they’ve never ever got
the money.
So now the question is, where is the money? We need eh eh
Gwede Mantashe to avail himself. We going to come to his
offices, we need him to tell us as to where is the money and why
our mothers and fathers have not yet received the money for all
this time. Imagine, we fought for democracy but our people, they
are not being helped by the Government and also the Premier’s
office, the Premier of Gauteng Mr Lesufi, we need you to come
in and intervene on this matter because R40 million was paid …
by the Mine and you have the case that those people have never
ever gotten the money.
So we need you to please release the funds as soon as possible.
We will be coming to you and we need assistance, we need help,
we need to expose all these leaders that are exploiting our poo
… poor people. The ANC must be ashamed of themselves to
even have such a man as Gwede Mantashe and right now he is
the Acting President but yet these people here they are poor.
5
Look at the living conditions where we are right now. The Acting
President is responsible for the R40 million that was paid by the
company. They don’t know where it is and now we have to come
in and we have to vote again.
As the Land and Minerals organisation, we are taking over this
matter and we are going to resolve it and then I thank you.”
The Tiktok video published on 29 May 2025
[8] On the 29th of May 2025 the respondent published another video on Tiktok
making statements, which the applicant alleges are false and defamatory,
repeating the same allegations. In this video the respondent invited
people to repeat the same allegations. The applicant states that in the
subsequent video, the respondent is seen telling people that the applicant
is the one who received R40 million from ERP Mine , which belongs to
their family members. The transcription of the relevant part of the video
appears at paragraph 23 of the applicant’s founding affidavit.
The Tiktok video published on 2 June 2025
[9] On the 2nd of June 2025 the respondent published another video repeating
the same allegations, which the applicant alleges contain false and
defamatory statements. The applicant states that in the video the
respondent is seen telling people that the applicant is the one who
received R40 million from ERP Mine which belongs to their family
members. Relevant parts of the video recording are transcribed in
paragraph 25 of the applicant’s founding affidavit.
9 June 2025 – Media interview
[10] On the 9th of June 2025 the applicant addressed the allegations in a media
interview. He states that in summary, he indicated the following as a
6
response to the respondent’s allegations:
[10.1] He does not know Mr Zuma and his organisation called “Land
and Minerals Movement”;
[10.2] He denies that he received any money from the Mine on behalf
of the miners during 1999, or at any time;
[10.3] He clarified that if there was any money due to the mineworkers
such money would have been paid to the Mineral Council or
Chambers of Mines to be distributed to the beneficiaries;
[10.4] He feels threatened by the people who believe the “lies” that the
respondent is propagating as they will believe that he took their
money;
[10.5] The respondent’s conduct is an attempt to lower his standing in
the eyes of the public and members of his organisation;
[10.6] He therefore intended to approach his lawyers for appropriate
legal action.
The Tiktok video published on 9 June 2025
[11] The applicant states that in view of the impact that the continuing conduct
of the respondent is having on his dignity, family and the office that he
holds, he decided to lay a criminal charge of crimen injuria against the
respondent at the Brooklyn Police Station.
[12] Following the criminal charges laid against the respondent, the
respondent published another video in which he is seen responding to the
applicant’s allegations. The applicant alleges that the respondent made
7
further false and defamatory statements. In the relevant parts of the video
he states inter alia the following:
“… The people or the workers of the ERP Mine, they are
accusing you, Mr Gwede Mantashe. They saying that you took
R40 million of their hard earned money and you said that you’re
going to invest the money and they have never spoken to you
since that time. And they want you to bring their investment back
with interest.
That is what the public is accusing you of. They saying that you
know them in person and they asking that if you say that indeed,
you do not know them and as a Minister, as a member of the
ANC, come and meet them because they are a community and
they are registered voters. They saying, come and meet them
and tell, and tell this to their faces that you do not know them.
You’ve never taken their money. You don’t know anything about
them. And to furthermore, furthermore, you are saying here in
this article that you are, have opened a case against me that
your, your attorneys, they going to pursue me for defamation of
character and so forth. We, as the Land and Minerals
Organisation, they are going to charge you for perjury. We are
going to charge you for defeating the ends of justice. Mr Gwede
Mantashe we are going to charge you for lying under oath.”
The Tiktok video published on 10 June 2025
[13] On the 10 th of June 2025 the respondent published another statement
which the applicant alleges are false and defamatory and repeating the
same allegations. In this video the respondent is seen at the applicant’s
ANC office in the company of a large group of people. Again, the
respondent is allegedly seen inciting people and informing them that the
applicant is the one who received R40 million from the ERP Mine which
8
belongs to them. A transcript of certain relevant parts of the video appears
at paragraph 32 of the applicant’s founding affidavit.
[14] The respondent has not disputed the aforesaid videos or the statements.
The respondent states that he is the leader of the Land and Minerals
Movement NPC of South Africa.
[15] The applicant denies that he has received R40 million from the said Mine
or any other mine. He states that the respondent is subjecting him to
abuse solely to tarnish his name with the hope that he will lose his position
both in the Government and the ANC. He alleges that he has nothing to
do with the payment of the miners. He states that his job as the then
Secretary General of NUM was to handle the administrative work of the
Union. He alleges that it is important to note that neither the Union nor
the Secretary General of the Union receives benefits on behalf of
employees and/or members. Any benefits due to employees and/or
Union members would have been paid to the Mineral Council or Chamber
of Mines for distribution amongst the beneficiaries.
[16] The applicant alleges that the respondent not reporting the matter to the
police is unfortunate and that there is no reason advanced by the
respondent for failing to report these allegations to the police. The
applicant argues that the intention is to impair his dignity without
subjecting the allegations to scrutiny. He states that the applicant is not
even willing to provide proof to the same media houses who offered him
a platform to make these allegations.
[17] The applicant argues that these statements are intended to mean and
were understood by those who heard them or read them that he received
R40 million, which belongs to the miners and that he kept it for himself.
He alleges that not only are these allegati ons false but exposes him and
his family to danger because he lives adjacent to mining communities and
he interacts with them all the time.
9
[18] The applicant alleges that the reach of these allegations is widespread,
and, given the nature of social media, it was circulated widely and
continues to be circulated with additional comments and innuendos. He
states that the view ers of all of the stations where the allegations were
made and repeated can easily access them. He states that the
allegations have caused immense harm and damage to his reputation and
the harm continues for each day that the respondent does not retract the
allegations. He states that it is a blatant attempt to tarnish his name in the
hope that the public will lose confidence in him and the office he holds.
The widespread dissemination of the allegations
[19] The applicant states that the respondent’s alleged false and defamatory
statements were covered by multiple media houses due to the magnitude
of the story. Some of the media houses that covered it include but are not
limited to Sunday World, City Press an d other online media. These
platforms have a huge following in South Africa.
[20] On Tiktok the publications generated a combined total of approximately
97 712 views, 2 586 likes and more than 421 comments on the social
media platform. The respondent repeated these statements at the ANC
office in full view of the public.
[21] The applicant states that the respondent has a large following on Tiktok
and therefore wields considerable public influence due to the work that
the respondent does. The respondent has more than 72 100 followers on
Tiktok. The applicant states that the allegations against him still appear
on the respondent’s Tiktok timeline. He states that his posts on Tiktok
videos are viewed by thousands of Tiktok users. The applicant states that
these allegations were not only discussed on the platforms mentioned
above but they are being discussed on X and other social media
platforms.
10
Publication in the printed media
[22] On the 8 th of June 2025 City Press published an article titled “Zuma
accuses Mantashe of lying under oath in ex mineworkers’ R40 million
payout”. The relevant parts of the article appear at paragraph 52 of the
applicant’s founding affidavit.
“When the ERPM was liquidated in 1999, at least 4 000 workers
were affected. Many had worked deep underground for years,
often in unsafe conditions.
In the aftermath of the mine’s closure, workers say they were
told that the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM), then under
leadership of its general secretary, Mantashe, had received their
settlement packages and would invest the money on their
behalf.
Zuma claims Mantashe assured workers their money would be
invested for ten years, but no returns have materialised. …”
[23] On the 6 th of June 2025 Sunday World published an article entitled
“Gwede Mantashe opens criminal case against Zuma”.
[24] Another article entitled “Zuma invades Lethuli House in search of Gwede
Mantashe” was published on 10 June 2025 by Sunday World. An excerpt
from the article appears at paragraph 54 of the applicant’s founding
affidavit and inter alia states the following:
“Promise not fulfilled
According to Zuma, it is the former mineworkers who say
Mantashe made off with their R40 -million, promising he was
11
going to invest it.
This occurred in 1999 when Mantashe was general secretary of
the National Union of Mineworkers (NUM).
“The Land and Minerals Movement was approached by former
EMRP mineworkers who were referred to us by the Department
of Labour,” Zuma recalled of his first involvement in the saga.”
[25] On the 9 th of June 2025 MSN.com published an article entitled “Gwede
Mantashe lays charges against Zakhele Zuma over theft claims, says he
is linked with MK Party”.
THE APPLICANT’S ATTEMPTS TO SETTLE THE MATTER WITH THE
RESPONDENT
[26] On the 9 th of June 2025 the applicant went to the police station and
opened a case of crimen injuria against Mr Zuma.
[27] On the 10 th of June 2025 the applicant, through his attorneys M MMG
Attorneys, sent a letter of demand to the respondent to retract the alleged
spurious and defamatory allegations that the applicant received R40
million from the ERP Mine, which was meant for the miners.
[28] The letter afforded the respondent seven days to retract his defamatory
allegations and apologise.
[29] The respondent has failed to comply with the letter of demand. The
applicant states that despite his attempt to settle the issue amicably, the
respondent proceeded to publish the alleged false and defamatory
statements against him.
12
SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT
[30] The applicant states that after the respondent had been served with the
urgent application the respondent had continued to publish alleged false
and defamatory videos.
[31] The applicant argues that the videos which he addresses in his
supplementary affidavit are relevant to two key issues before this Court
namely:
[31.1] the urgency of the matter; and
[31.2] the necessity for the Court to grant the relief sought to protect
his constitutional right to dignity.
[32] On the 20th of June 2025 the respondent published a video on Tiktok, of
which a transcription appears at paragraph 6 of the supplementary
affidavit.
[33] On the 22 nd of June 2025 the respondent published a further video on
Tiktok, which the applicant alleges contains false and defamatory
statements. A transcript of the video recording appears at paragraph 7 of
the supplementary affidavit. The respondent states inter alia the
following:
“… Whether a Court proves you otherwise, it doesn’t matter, but
you are guilty. You owe something to these people. Something
is wrong, somehow, there is a reason why you do not want to
meet those people. That’s what I’m going to say as the leader
of the organisation but as far as the charges and everything is
concerned, I mean like, you know, its okay. Its just a repression
of yourself. Return the money. No wonder why people are
saying that you owe them money and besides that I heard that
13
it was your birthday. So like I say happy belated birthday and to
the Minister, but that R40 million, it would have been a very good
present to those people, to the ERMP mine workers. Just think
about that, and I thank you.”
[34] The applicant states that on Tiktok the publication generated a combined
total of approximately 5 777 views, 236 likes and more than 52 comments
on the social media platform.
URGENCY
[35] The applicant’s grounds for urgency appears at paragraph 57 -64 of the
founding papers. The respondent has not taken a point in limine or a point
of urgency in the matter. The applicant makes inter alia the following
allegations which are not disputed by the respondent:
[35.1] There is ongoing harm - the statements are being repeated and
the respondent has no intention to retract and not repeat them;
[35.2] He and his family are being abused and accused of theft by the
public;
[35.3] The applicant has received threats from certain sections of the
public arising directly from the allegations made by the
respondent;
[35.4] As a Minister and Chairperson of the ANC, the applicant is
unable to enforce discipline both in the ANC and Government
because of these allegations;
[35.5] If the allegations are false, it is in the public interest that they
should be addressed without delay, to preserve the integrity of
14
the office that he holds . The converse also applies: if the
statements are true, that would significantly impact public
confidence in the office that the applicant holds.
[36] The applicant argued that substantial redress would not be afforded to
him in due course. The respondent has been told to retract the
allegations. He has been obdurate in his refusal. In fact, he is repeating
the statements even after he had been served with the application. The
applicant argues that the repetition evidences malicious intent. The
applicant argues that the malicious conduct of the respondent is also
relevant to urgency.
[37] The applicant relies on the matter of Manuel v Economic Freedom
Fighters and Others,2 which he argues is a case on substantially similar
facts, which was brought before this Court. False and defamatory
allegations of corruption and nepotism were published against a former
Minister of Finance pertaining to the manner in which the Commissioner
of the Revenue Services was appointed. Declaratory and interdictory
relief was also sought in tha t matter. One of the arguments of the
respondents was that the matter was not urgent because relief could be
sought in due course.
[38] The Court dismissed the objections based on urgency on the following
grounds.
“[16] The respondents dispute the urgency of the application. They
contend that Mr Manuel's fears of harm are based on mere
anxiety that his reputation may be harmed and that he has not
provided any evidence of such harm. The respondents argue
that this case is an abuse of legal process, as it was brought to
be heard on the day before the national elections by Mr Manuel,
2 2019 (5) SA 210 (GJ)
15
who is their political rival, in order to cause maximum damage to
the respondents.
[17] Mr Manuel is accused of grave allegations of corruption and
nepotism. Allegations of dishonesty and immoral or
dishonourable conduct are defamatory. There is no reason why
Mr Manuel ought to submit himself to further indignities and
assaults on his dignity before this matter can be determined.
Dignity is not only a value fundamental to the Constitution, but it
is also a justiciable and enforceable right that must be respected
and protected.
[18] …
[19] In Safcor Forwarding (Johannesburg) (Pty) Ltd v National
Transport Commission3 Corbett JA held that:
·... Naturally, it is for the Court to decide whether the matter is
really one of urgency and whether the circumstances warrant a
departure from the normal procedures. To hold otherwise would,
in my view, make the Court the captive of the Rules. I prefer the
view that the Rules exist for the Court, rather than the Court for
the Rules.'
[20] The respondents have been afforded ten days to prepare their
answering affidavits, all the papers have been filed, and the
matter is ripe for hearing. The respondents have not complained
that the time frames in the notice of motion prejudiced them. The
manner is which dignity is engaged in this matter renders the
matter urgent. Having regard to the relevant factors and, in
3 Safcor Forwarding (Johannesburg) (Pty) Ltd v National Transport Commission 192 (3) SA
654 (A) at 675H
16
particular, the fact that it is in the public interest to urgently
determine whether National Treasury conducted a corrupt and
nepotistic appointment process of the new Commissioner of
SARS, I am satisfied that Mr Manuel was justified in bringing this
matter on a semi-urgent basis.”4
[39] The applicant argued that the facts in the Manuel matter are virtually
identical to this application:
[39.1] The defamation in this case is based on the allegations of
dishonesty against the applicant as was the case in the Manuel
matter:
“There is no reason why [the applicant] ought to submit himself
to further indignities and assaults on his dignity before this
matter can be determined. Dignity is not only a value
fundamental to the Constitution, but it is also justiciable and
enforceable right that may be respected and protected.”5
[39.2] As in the Manuel case, there has been sufficient time afforded
to the respondent to respond to the allegations:
“The respondents have not complained that the timeframes in
the Notice of Motion prejudiced them.”6
[39.3] Dignity is engaged, and “the manner in which dignity is engaged
4 Manuel v Economic Freedom Fighters and Others, supra at paras 16-20
5 Manuel v EFF at para 17
6 Manuel v EFF at para 20
17
here renders the matter urgent”.7
[39.4] The applicant further argued that there is a public interest
element, there is clearly urgency in deciding whether or not the
Minister of Mineral, Energy and Resources was engaged in theft
of public funds.
[40] Furthermore, the applicant cannot obtain relief in due course, by instituting
action proceedings. The Supreme Court of Appeal in Economic
Freedom Fighters v Manuel8 held the following:
“[89] In circumstances where the applicants 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 viable and compelling alternative to an
interdict prohibiting further publication. Mr Manuel satisfied the
requirements for the final relief he had sought, which was
granted by the court below. The applicants’ reliance on this
court’s decision in Tau v Mashaba and Others is misplaced. That
case concerned an application for interim relief, pending an
‘action for defamation and damages’. The court below, in that
case, before allowing for possible defences to be addressed,
granted a declaratory order and an interdict in final terms. This
court, predictably, set those orders aside. That case is far from
the facts of the present application. In the present case, Mr
Manuel satisfied the requirements for the declaratory and
interdictory relief sought. Cons equently, those orders are not
liable to be set aside.”
7 Manuel v EFF at para 20
8 2021 (3) SA 425 (SCA)
18
[41] In EFF v Manuel, the SCA in regard to the use of urgent proceedings to
seek interdictory relief held the following:
“[111] There is, of course, no problem with persons seeking an
interdict, interim or final, against the publication of defamatory
statements proceeding by way of motion proceedings, on an
urgent basis, if necessary. If they satisfy the threshold
requirements for that kind of order, they would obtain instant,
though not necessarily complete, relief. There is precedent for
this in the well -known case of Buthelezi v Poorter, where an
interdict was granted urgently in relation to an egregious piece
of character assass ination. Notably, however, the question of
damages was dealt with separately. In appropriate
circumstances persons following this route might, as pointed out
earlier, be required to overcome the barriers to prior restraints
and have to deal with the availability of alternative measures, as
a potential bar, to achieving redress. However, seeking
damages, instantly, on application, is problematic for the
reasons provided above. Counsel for the amicus, like counsel
for Mr Manuel, did not provide a proper basis for departing from
the established position of requiring evidence and did not
propose how damages might otherwise, especially in opposed
matters, be determined. In argument he indicated that if we held
that a claim for damages could not be pursued on pape r, we
should nevertheless reiterate that an interdict, retraction and
apology could be ordered.”
19
DEFAMATION
Meaning
[42] The requirements for defamation are trite. It requires a twofold enquiry. 9
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 plaintiff was held by the reasonable
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.10
[43] The applicant has identified four manifestations of the defamatory
character of the statement. These are:
[43.1] That the applicant has received R40 million from the ERP Mine
which was meant for the miners;
[43.2] That the applicant lacks integrity;
[43.3] That the applicant is not trustworthy;
[43.4] That the applicant does not uphold his oath of office.
[44] This meaning and its defamatory nature has not been denied in the
answering affidavit. 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
9 Le Roux and Others v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute and Restorative Justice
Centre as amici curiae) 2011 ZACC 4; 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC) (Le Roux v Dey) para 89
10 Le Roux v Dey, para 19
20
others in the community.11 The applicant has argued that this is more so
when that person is a Government Minister.
[45] Once the statement has been shown to be defamatory, it is presumed that
the statement was published wrongfully and with the intent to injure12
[46] It accordingly falls upon the respondent to produce facts and evidence
which would exclude wrongfulness and intention to injure.
DEFENCES
[47] The defences in law available to the respondent are truth and public
benefit, absence of animus iniuriandi and fair comment.
Truth and public benefit
[48] From the answering affidavit it appears that the respondent is relying on
this defence.
[49] Truth and public benefit would negate unlawfulness . However, the
respondent relying on truth and public interest must plead and prove that
the statement is substantially true and was published in the public
interest.13
[50] In paragraph 3 of the answering affidavit, the respondent raised the
defence of “‘truthfulness of statement ’: the statements made about
Minister Mantashe’s involvement in the missing R40 million are true. The
mine workers have provided affidavits, and I believe the Court should
11 EFF v Manuel at para 30, 35 and 36
12 Ibid, para 36
13 EFF v Manuel at para 37
21
consider their testimonies ”. The “affidavits” do not support the
respondent’s version.
[50.1] The first document is an affidavit which was deposed to by Mr
Leonardo Mano on 25 June 2025. It only states that he used to
work for ERP Mine and that it has closed and he is still waiting
for his money.
[50.2] The second document is not an affidavit. It appears to be a
handwritten statement. It does not provide any evidence of the
alleged monies having been paid to the applicant. The
document also does not say that the applicant received R40
million from ERP Mine. It does not appear from the statement
who the deponent or deponents to this statement is/are. There
are signatures at the bottom of the statement , however the
signatories are not identified on the document.
[51] The respondent has provided no evidence – he relies on what he was
allegedly told. The respondent states that he will provide further evidence
in Court to support his claims. The respondent requests this Court to
investigate the matter. The applicant argued that it is not clear why the
respondent did not furnish such evidence when he was called upon to do
so or furnish such evidence together with his answering affidavit. The
applicant further argued that this is an attempt by the respondent to
secure evidence post facto to justify his false and defamatory statements.
The applicant argues that the question still remains as to why the
respondent is not reporting to the police so that the issue can be
investigated.
[52] Apart from the alleged truth defence, the respondent does not provide any
evidence that supports his statements which remain untrue and
defamatory. No case is made out for the “truthfulness of the statement”.
The applicant argues that the respondent can hardly show the truth of the
22
statement, as on his own version, he was informed by other people.
[53] In the matter of Tsedu v Lekota,14 the Supreme Court of Appeal held that:
“The article purported to be a report of what had been said in a
book that had been published some three years earlier. In the
course of a radio interview about the article shortly after it had
appeared, Tsedu remarked to the interviewer that if the
respondents “have problems with [that was said in the book]
they should take the author of the book to Court and not City
Press.” It is evident from the remark that he was under the
impression that a newspaper might publish defamatory
statements with impunit y if they have been originated by
someone else. Well, journalists who keep Kelsey Stuart’s
Newspaperman’s Guide to the Law15 by their side know that that
is not so from the following passage:
‘[a] person who repeats or adopts and re-publishes a defamatory
statement will be held to have published the statement . The
writer of a letter published in a newspaper is prima facie liable
for the publication of it but so are the editor, printer, publisher
and proprietor. So too a person who publishes a defamatory
rumour cannot escape liability on the ground that he passed it
on only as a rumour, without endorsing it.16’” (My emphasis)
[54] The respondent has not provided evidence that the alleged money was
paid to the applicant but has relied on his subjective belief in their
truthfulness. This is not a defence of truth. In the Manuel case the
14 (715/7) [2009] ZASCA 11 (17 March 2009)
15 5 ed (1990) by Bell Dewar and Hall p 43
16 Tsedu v Lekota, para 4
23
following was held:
“[37] The applicants made no attempt to establish that the defamatory
statements about Mr Manuel were true. The furthest they went
was to claim that they believed to be true what they had been
told in a WhatsApp message by a whistle blower, whose identity
they kept secret. There was no attempt to refute Mr Manuel's
statements that he was not related to Mr Kieswetter and that
they were neither business associates or companions. As those
factual propositions were the foundation for the entire statement
and its attack on Mr Manuel the failure to establish that they were
substantially true was fatal to the defence . It was correctly
rejected by the high court and not surprisingly it was not pursued
in argument.”17 (Own Emphasis)
[55] The applicant argued that there were also no supporting documents such
as proof of payment or an affidavit from the officials of ERP Mine which
clearly indicate that the applicant was paid such money.
[56] In the absence of supporting evidence and a failure to lay a criminal
charge against the applicant, the statement remains untrue. There is
accordingly no dispute of fact.18
Fair comment
[57] In order for a defence of fair comment to succeed, four elements must be
proven. These are:
17 EFF v Manuel at para 37. Also see Godongwana and Mthunzi Perry-Mason Mdwaba
(Unreported judgment of Dosio J), Gauteng Local Division delivered on the 26th of January 2024
18 Godongwana and Mthunzi Perry-Mason Mdwaba para 63
24
[57.1] There must be a comment and not a statement of fact;
[57.2] It must be a fair and honestly held opinion;
[57.3] The facts on which it is based must be true, clearly stated and
matters of public knowledge;
[57.4] The comment must relate to a matter of public interest.19
[58] No case is made out for fair comment in the answering affidavit and it is
not available either as the statement is not a comment, but stated as a
fact.
Animus iniuriandi
[59] In EFF v Manuel several factors were taken into account to establish the
intent to injure:
[59.1] First was the failure to verify the information before the
publication;
“[81] Viewing these facts from the perspective of a
contention that the statement was published without
the animus iniuriandi they fell woefully short of
discharging the onus on that issue. It is clear that the
EFF published the statement accusing Mr Manuel of
nepotism and corruption on the basis of statements
made by its source that it made no attempt to check.
Even if it were given the same benefit that the
conventional media are given in regard to non -
19 Crawford v Albu 1970 AD 102 at 115-117. Godongwana v Mdwaba ibid at para 65
25
disclosure of their sources, that would not assist its
case. The allegations it made were clearly
defamatory and concerned a public figure given the
responsibility of interviewing people and advising the
President on the appointment of the Commissioner of
SARS. That is a most serious allegation. To do so on
the basis of a message of this type without any
endeavour to confirm the truth of the allegations is
inconsistent with the absence of an intention to injure.
It demonstrates a willingness to wound irresp ective
of the truth of the allegations.”20 (Own emphasis)
[59.2] In casu there is simply no evidence of any steps taken by the
respondent to verify the information before publishing it.
[59.3] Secondly, with regards to the continuing publication after the
letter of demand and application the SCA held:
“[82] The position was made worse in regard to the
continuing publication of the statement after 27
March 2019 when Mr Manuel had said that the facts
were false and demanded a retraction and its
removal. He issued a statement demanding the
production of evidence for three claims, namely, that
there were 'blood ties' between him and Mr
Kieswetter; that there were business relationships
between them; and that he had previously appointed
Mr Kieswetter as Deputy Commissioner of SARS.
(The latter allegation was made in the statement but
did not appear in the WhatsApp message.) Mr
Malema's response on Twitter when a journalist drew
20 EFF v Manuel ibid at para 81
26
this statement to his attention was: 'He can go to hell,
we are not scared of him.' This attracted 396 retweets
and 1460 likes.”
[59.4] The same applies in casu. After the 10th of June 2025 (letter of
demand) and the 20 th of June 2025 (urgent application) the
respondent was not relenting.
[59.5] Finally, the fact that the matter was opposed21 is also illustrative
of the intent to injure.22 The same applies in casu.
REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL INTERDICT
[60] The requirements for a final interdict are set out in the seminal case of
Setlogelo v Setlogelo, 23 as cited with approval in the matter of Pilane
and Another v Pilane and Others.24 An applicant seeking such relief is
requested to satisfy the Court of the existence of the following
requirements for a final interdict, namely:
[60.1] A clear right;
[60.2] There must be an injury actually committed or reasonably
apprehended;
[60.3] There must not be a similar protection available to the applicant
by any ordinary means.
21 “To the bitter end in the High Court”
22 EFF v Manuel at para 84
23 1914 AD 221
24 [2013] ZACC 3
27
[61] The applicant has met the requirements for a final interdict.
[62] The applicant has a clear right to protect his dignity and reputation, which
he argues the respondent has infringed. Secondly, he has suffered and
continues to suffer harm to his reputation, both in his personal and
professional capacities, through the widespread dissemination of the
impugned statement. The applicant has also received threats from certain
sectors of the public arising directly from the allegations made by the
respondent. The applicant has no alternative remedy to the persisting
injury, as the respondent has refused to apologise or to take down the
defamatory statements from his social media platforms.
[63] The applicant has no alternative satisfactory remedy available to him.25
[64] If it is so that the allegations are false, then it is in the public interest that
they should be addressed without delay. The opposite also applies, in
that if the statements are true, they would significantly impact public
confidence and the confidence of the markets generally in the office of the
Minister.26
[65] This Court finds the applicant has passed the threshold for a final interdict.
THE QUESTION OF QUANTUM
[66] The applicant seeks an amount of R500 000,00 in damages. In the matter
of EFF v Manuel27 the Supreme Court of Appeal stated that:
“… Claims for unliquidated damages by their very nature involve
25 EFF v Manual ibid para 89 and para 111 . Also see Godongwana v Mdwaba ibid at para 85-
87
26 Godongwana v Mdwaba ibid at para 87
27 Ibid
28
a determination by the court of an amount that is just and
reasonable in the light of a number of imponderable and
incommensurable factors.”28
[67] Furthermore, in the matter of National Director of Public Prosecutions
v Zuma,29 the Supreme Court of Appeal stated that motion proceedings
are geared to deal with the resolution of common cause facts.30
[68] Illiquid claims by their very nature involve the resolution of factual issues.
[69] As a result, motion proceedings are particularly unsuited to prosecution
of claims for unliquidated damages, whether in relation to defamation or
otherwise.31
[70] Uniform Rule 18(10), “enjoins any party claiming damages to provide
sufficient information to enable the opposing party to know why the
particular amounts being claimed as damages is in fact being claimed”.32
[71] Relevant evidence needs to be presented and fully explored for a Court
to determine an appropriate award.
[72] A Court, in motion proceedings, in terms of Uniform Rule 6(5)(g), has a
discretion to direct that oral evidence be heard on specified issues with a
view to resolving a dispute of fact or, in appropriate circumstances, to
order the matter to trial.
28 Ibid, para 93
29 National Director of Public Prosecutions v Zuma 2009 ZASCA 1; 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA)
30 Ibid, para 26
31 EFF v Manuel ibid para 105
32 Grindrod (Pty) Ltd v Delport and Others 1997 (1) SA 342 (W)
29
[73] The quantum of damages and the reputational damages the applicant
seeks, is not readily capable of determination on the papers. Accordingly,
this Court refers the question of quantum to oral evidence.33
THE REQUEST BY THE APPLICANT FOR A RETRACTION OF THE
STATEMENT MADE
[74] A retraction and an apology will help to secure redress for the applicant.
However, the Supreme Court of Appeal in the matter of EFF v Manuel34
stated that:
“… An apology has always weighed heavily in determining the
quantum of damages in defamation cases as occurred in Le
Roux v Dey. 35 In our view, whether an order for an apology
should be made is inextricably bound up with the question of
damages. As the latter award falls to be set aside and referred
to oral evidence, so too must the order to publish a retraction
and apology be set asi de and referred to the high court for
determination after the hearing of oral evidence on damages.”36
[75] Accordingly, the order for a publication of a retraction will be referred to
oral evidence.
COSTS
[76] The applicant in his Notice of Motion has requested the costs of the
application to be awarded to him on a punitive scale (attorney client costs)
33 Godongwana v Mdwaba ibid at para 97
34 EFF v Manuel ibid at para 130
35 Le Roux and Others v Dey (CCT 45/10) [2011] ZACC 4 ; 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC); 2011 (6)
BCLR 577 (CC) (8 March 2011)
36 EFF v Manuel at para 130
30
however in his draft Court order provided on two occasions the applicant
has not dealt with the aspect of costs. As I have not heard the parties on
costs, I will reserve the question of costs.
ORDER
[1] Accordingly, it is ordered that:
[1.1] It is declared that the allegations made by the respondent about
the applicant on TikTok and other social media platforms,
specifically that the applicant received R40 000 000.00 from a
company called East Rand Proprietary Mines ( ‘ERPM Mine’ )
which was meant for the miners, is false and defamatory.
[1.2] It is declared that the respondent’s publications of the
statements is unlawful.
[1.3] The respondent is interdicted from doing any interview or
posting statements that say or imply that the applicant has
received R 40 000 000.00 from the ERPM mine;
[1.4] It is declared that the respondent is liable to pay damages to the
applicant;
[1.5] The quantification of those damages is referred to oral evidence.
[1.6] A retraction of the statements is referred to oral evidence.
[1.7] The costs of the urgent application are reserved.
Delivered: This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge s whose
names are reflected and is handed down electronically by circulation
to the Parties/their legal representatives by email and by uploading
31
it to the electronic file of this matter on CaseLines. The date for hand-
down is deemed to be on 16 July 2025.
______________________________________
HEARD ON: 9 JULY 2025
DATE OF JUDGMENT: 16 July 2025
FOR APPLICANT:
Advocate P Managa
E-mail: managalaw@gmail.com
INSTRUCTED BY:
Madiba Motsai Masitenyane & Githiri Attorneys
E-mail: tumi@mmmgattorneys.co.za
tshanda@mmmgattorneys.co.za
FOR RESPONDENT:
In person
E-mail: landandminerals070@gmail.com