IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
(1) REPORTABLE:~/NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: 'l'i!S/NO
(aj_/) REVISED.
. . ;?; ~-/ . .1.J ~:Y.l-. ~
DATE
In the application of:
TEBOGO LETSIE
and
SIMAMKELE XANI
CITY PRESS (A PUBLICATION OF MEDIA24 (PTY) LTD)
ABRAM MASHEGO
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTH AFRICA
JUDGMENT
LABUSCHAGNE J
CASE NO: 2025/25100 1
Applicant
First Respondent
Second Respondent
Third Respondent
Fourth Respondent
Page 2
[1] The applicant approached the court for urgent interim relief seeking an order
restraining the first, second and third respondents from repeating an allegation
that the applicant was linked to a corrupt or irregular security tender of R82
million allegedly awarded by the Vice Chancellor of UNISA to the applicant.
[2] The applicant seeks a declarator that the allegations are false, unlawful and
defamatory, and constitute an infringement of the applicant's right to dignity,
reputation and good name. The applicant seeks an order restraining the first,
second and third respondents from publishing, republishing, disseminating or
causing to be published whether orally, or in writing, electronically , digitally or
on any media or social media platform, the aforesaid defamatory statement.
[3] The applicant further applied for relief against the second and third
respondents, which fell away because of the withdrawal of the application
against them.
[4] The applicant is the chairperson of the Parliamentary Portfolio Committee on
Higher Education. The allegation that he was awarded a security tender in the
amount of R82 million by UNISA is per se defamatory. It directly implies
corruption on his part. This allegation was made in a letter written by the first
respondent's attorneys dated 26 November 2025.
[5] The fourth respondent (hereafter UNISA) has filed a notice to abide and has
provided an explanatory affidavit. The applicant seeks no relief against
UNISA. The only dispute is therefore between the applicant and the first
respondent.
Page 3
[6] The first respondent refers to himself as the deputy secretary of a forum called
Save UNISA, established to publicise irregularities in respect of UNISA. He
has crossed swords with UNISA regarding, inter alia, the appointment of the
current Vice Chancellor, Prof Lenka Bula, and is involved in other litigation with
UNISA.
URGENCY AND PRIMA FACIE RIGHT
(7] The tone of the answering affidavit is aggressive and hostile to the applicant
and the defamatory statement was, despite a demand for a retraction,
repeated at least twice. As the applicant is Chairperson of the Parliamentary
Portfolio Committee on Higher Education, the adverse allegations against him
could trigger the "step aside" policy of the ANC, the political party to which he
belongs. The publication took place days before a national conference of the
ANC which the applicant attended. The allegation has the capacity to harm
the applicant in his political career.
(8] In an explanatory affidavit filed by UNISA the following is stated in paragraph
10:
"The allegation that the fourth respondent's Principal and Vice Chancellor
awarded a security tender to the applicant are (sic) patently false and
defamatory. The fourth respondent has not procured any security services in
the past five years. On the contrary, the security services of the fourth
respondent are in-housed. This renders the allegation made by the first
respondent to be unfounded and false, with the intention of damaging the good
name of the fourth respondent, its Principal and Vice Chancellor and the
Page4
applicant. It is completely unbecoming of the first respondent to make false
and unsubstantiated allegations, hugely defamatory a/legations, without
producing proof to that fact. The first respondent has made these false and
defamatory allegations knowing them to be false. This is the conduct the court
should frown at and censure."
(9] This averment was not placed in dispute by the first respondent. The Unisa
affidavit takes the attorney for the first respondent to task for failing to verify
what could easily have been established. In the letter of 26 November 2025,
sent by the first respondent's attorney to a number of recipients, it was alleged
that the Vice Chancellor was corruptly awarded a security tender in the
amount of R82 million (eighty-two million Rand for a period of three years) to
the applicant. This averment has been made since 2021 and gave rise to
previous litigation.
(1 0] UNISA pointed out that in a court order of 28 November 2024, Potterill J
interdicted the first respondent from publishing defamatory statements against
UNISA or its Vice Chancellor and Principal.
(11) The first respondent regards himself as an activist, publishing irregularities as
far as UN ISA is concerned , and regards himself to be a whistleblower. Whilst
it is an honourable thing to point out irregularities and the wastage of public
funds, the facts on which those allegations are based have to be stated, must
be correct and cannot be patently false. No supporting facts were provided
and the allegations are false.
Page 5
[12] The applicant sent a letter to the first respondent seeking a retraction, but none
was forthcoming. In the answering affidavit the first respondent repeated the
defamatory allegations in paragraph 8 and paragraph 14 of his answering
affidavit.
[13] Rather than dealing with the allegation complained of, the first respondent
takes the applicant to task for turning a blind eye to complaints as far as UNISA
is concerned that he has submitted to the Portfolio Committee on Higher
Education. He states in paragraph 20:
"20. The applicant cannot jump and ignore all the information which is before
his committee and come to court without addressing the complaints first.
It is his own doing to find himself crying foul of his own making. He has
made the bed, so he must sleep on it, so the saying goes.
21. The applicant is avoiding scrutiny and approaches court with blood in his
hands on a pending investigation by parliament and law enforcement
agencies ... ".
[14] The first respondent is ostensibly oblivious to the defamatory nature and the
falsity of the allegations made against the applicant and, through the tone of
his answering affidavit, appears to take pleasure in the discomfort of the
applicant. Such an approach cannot be countenanced.
[15] In Mbalula v Mda [2025] ZAGPPHC 878 (20 August 2025) Baqwa J states
the following:
Page 6
"Urgency
[4] The applicant submits, and I accept, that the matter is urgent based on
the present and continuous harm to dignity that he cannot reasonably be
expected to endure with the intended anxiety and embarrassment
brought about by the continued violation of his Dignitas and his rights.
[5] He further submits that there is ongoing and prolonged reputational
harm, humiliation, and indignity accompanying the respondent's acts,
aided by the continuous accessibility of the tweets on X. This results in
harm justifying the urgent relief sought."
[16] The same considerations apply in this matter. The applicant has established
a prima facie right to protect his fama and dignitas against repetition of the
defamatory allegation. The answering affidavit does not detract from the
aforesaid. The answering affidavit consists of 260 pages, very little of which is
relevant to the issue at hand. The first respondent's grievance with UNISA in
respect of the appointment of its Vice Chancellor has permeated the entirety
of the answering affidavit. The first respondent expects the applicant to deal
with that issue rather than the defamatory statement that he has been
awarded a corrupt tender.
[17] The applicant gave notice that he will seek costs de bonis propriis in respect
of the aforesaid conduct.
Page 7
[18] Counsel who appeared for the first respondent was not responsible for the
drafting of the papers and has conceded that the papers are defective as they
go wider than the dispute at hand.
[19] I am satisfied that on the facts the applicant has established the risk of
repetition of the false allegations made against the applicant and that he has
established an entitlement to protect his good name and dignity. This
establishes urgency and the first three elements of an interim interdict. The
fact that the first respondent failed or refused to retract the defamatory
statement leaves the applicant with no alternative remedy but to seek urgent
interdictory relief.
[20] The first respondent's contention that he has made a protected disclosure, is
untenable. He has published and repeated a patently false defamatory
allegation against the applicant.
[21] A number of other defences were raised. It was contended that, as the
publication complained of is in a letter of the first respondent's attorneys, that
the allegation is privileged , that it is not a disclosure or publication made by
the first respondent, is confidential and that the application should therefore
fail. Each of these defences merely needs to be stated to be rejected.
[22] The declarors sought are not necessary in light of the order I give below.
Page 8
COSTS
[23] The unnecessary inflation of the court papers in urgent proceedings by the
careless manner in which the answering papers were prepared,and
introducing irrelevant issues are worthy of censure. As a mark of disapproval ,
the attorney for the first respondent will be disallowed any fees arising from
the preparation of the answering affidavit. I have considered the issue of costs
de bonis propriis. The only consideration that moves me to decline the
invitation to order such costs, is that the first respondent instructed his attorney
to drag the dispute regarding the Vice Chancellor into these proceedings. The
attorney should have known better than to blindly comply with such
instructions , without even a basic enquiry into the factual basis for the relevant
allegations. However, the first respondent is ultimately responsible for the
applicant's wasted costs in this regard.
CONCLUSION
[24] In the premises I am satisfied that the applicant has made out a case as far
as the first respondent is concerned. I consequently make the following order:
1. The first respondent is interdicted and restrained , pending the final
determination of proceedings to be instituted within 30 (thirty) days of
date of this order, from publishing, republishing, disseminating or
causing to be published or disseminated in any form, or on any platform,
I
Page 9
the allegation that the Vice Principal of UNISA awarded a security tender
in the amount of R82 million to the applicant.
2. The first respondent shall pay the costs of this application on the scale
as between attorney and client, and where applicable, on Scale C.
3. The attorney of the first respondent is denied any fees arising from the
drafting of the answering affidavit.
LABU CHAGNE J
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT