About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAKZPHC 16
|
|
ALS Paramedics (Pty) Ltd v Duma in his capacity as MEC for Department of Transport and Human Settlements: KwaZulu-Natal (2026-029382) [2026] ZAKZPHC 16 (20 February 2026)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
KWAZULU-NATAL
DIVISION, PIETERMARITZBURG
CASE NUMBER: 2026-029382
In
the matter between:
ALS
PARAMEDICS (PTY) LTD.
APPLICANT
Versus
SIBONISO
ARMSTRONG DUMA in his capacity as MEC FOR
DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORT AND HUMAN SETTLEMENTS:
KWAZULU-NATAL
RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
P
C BEZUIDENHOUT J
:
[1]
Applicant brought an urgent application that Respondent be
interdicted and restrained from making
any written or verbal
defamatory statements concerning Applicant including by stating or
implying what is set out in the notice
of motion. I am not
going to repeat them herein. In the notice of motion it
required the publication of a formal retraction
by Respondent but
this was during argument requested to be deleted. Applicant
seeks that the relief which is sought in paragraph
2.1 of the notice
of motion should operate as interim interdict pending the
finalisation of the application. It is opposed
by Respondent
who submitted that the matter was not urgent.
[2]
It was submitted on behalf of Applicant that Respondent made these
statements on two occasions
on the same day, 29 January 2026 and that
it may continue. It was submitted that Applicant was vulnerable
to such comments
and that it was necessary to prevent it from
continuing and that the words must be seen in the context of their
meaning.
It was submitted that the words such as “bulldoze”,
“misreport”, “not provide service to member of
the
public that does not have medical aid” were indeed defamatory
and implies that Applicant operates in a manner that is
not befitting
of human life. Applicant would therefore suffer irreparable
harm if it is not granted.
[3]
It was submitted on behalf of Respondent that in actual fact the
relief which was sought was final
relief and that that was not
appropriate. It was further submitted that if the order is
granted it would not have any effect
because Respondent may be moved
from the position of MEC for Transport. It was submitted that
Applicant has an alternative
remedy in that an action could be
instituted and that there was no case for interim relief. It
was further submitted that
Respondent did not mislead the public and
that what he said was in the public interest and correct. It
was not denied by
Respondent that he did utter the said words.
[4]
The incident originated on 29 January 2026 at an accident scene where
Applicant arrived at the
scene at 8H30. They assisted at the
scene and Respondent arrived at the scene at 11H00. The EMRS
operations manager
requested staff of Applicant for medication to
assist. It was reported to Applicant’s staff that one
person had died
at the Albert Luthuli Hospital which he then informed
Respondent of. It was then discovered that there was a
misunderstanding
that it was someone on the way to Albert Luthuli
Hospital not from there and he then immediately informed Respondent
that there
was not another person that had died and accordingly it
was 11 and not 12 as it then would have been.
[5]
Respondent then held a press conference with the SABC News 1, 2 and
3, East Coast Radio and others
as well as SABC Radio and on two
occasions on the said day made the remarks which Applicants now
contends are defamatory and that
Respondent must be prevented from
uttering such again.
[6]
Respondent
inter alia
uttered the following:
“
Unfortunately there is another
thing that took place. Both RTI, Metro and the SAPS are
complaining about ALS services.
They are saying that they bully
on the scene and in some instances the fluctuate members. Like
for instance, they told that
there were 12 people that died which was
not true and two weeks ago during the accident that took place they
say that 11 people
were affected or who were injured which was a
fallacy. There were only 3 school going children in the school
and all of them
were not even injured. So it is something that
they must persists from doing because it is not right that we saying
that
scene’s like these are so sensitive.”
He
also uttered the following:
“
I’m sure you know by now
they are also insensitive in some instances. If you do not have
a medical aid they are not
going to assist you. If it means
that you are dying, if it means that they could still save you.
It is something that
is which is why I would prefer to deal with the
Department of Health.”
He
continued:
“
So we just have to mange these
matter in a manner that is befitting of the human life at this point
in time.”
[
7] It is therefore contended by Applicant
that the statement by Respondent is defamatory and the meaning
of the
words is obvious from the statement and is meant to infer that
Applicant does not
inter alia
manage matters in a manner
befitting human life.
[8]
On a reading of the papers it would appear that what Applicant
contends is defamatory was said
by Respondent on two occasion the
same day, 29 January 2026, and there were further reports in
newspapers that related to the letter
of demand from Applicant to
Respondent to retract the said words which he refused to do.
[9]
There is no indication in the papers that after 29 January 2026
Respondent once again made these
remarks or any indication that he is
intent on doing so.
[10]
There is mention of an attack on an EMS ambulance. There is
nothing to indicate an attack on one of
Applicant’s ambulances
nor that such is imminent.
[11]
Accordingly I am of the view considering what was said that there may
be the issue of whether what
was said is defamatory but that no case
has been made out for interim relief.
[12]
It would accordingly be necessary for the papers to be supplemented
and that an order should be granted to
both Applicant and Respondent
to supplement their papers. Applicant to supplement their
papers if they so whish, Respondent
theirs and Applicant then to file
a reply.
I
accordingly grant an order in terms of:
1.
That a
rule nisi
do hereby issue calling upon Respondent to
show cause, if any, on or before the 4 day of May 2026 why an order
should not be granted
in the following terms:
1.1
That Respondent is interdicted and restrained from making written
or
verbal defamatory statements concerning Applicant, including by
stating or implying the following;
1.1.1
That Applicant “bulldozes” at the scene of motor vehicle
collisions and that Applicant
is insensitive;
1.1.2
That RTI, SAPS and Metro were complaining about Applicant;
1.1.3
That Applicant misreports the numbers of injured and deceased persons
affected by motor vehicle
collisions;
1.1.4
That Applicant fails to provide services to members of the public
without medical aid, and
1.1.5
That Applicant manages its operations in a manner that is not
befitting of huma life.
1.2
That Respondent is directed to pay the costs of this application
on
the attorney and client scale, such costs to include counsel’s
costs on Scale B.
2.
Applicant is granted leave to supplement its papers by 10 March 2026.
3.
Respondent is granted leave to supplement its papers by 26 March
2026.
4.
Applicant to file a reply by 10 April 2026.
5.
Costs of today are reserved.
P
C BEZUIDENHOUT J.
JUDGMENT
RESERVED:
19 FEBRUARY 2026
JUDGMENT
HANDED DOWN:
20 FEBRUARY 2026
COUNSEL
FOR APPLICANT:
C GAJOO
Instructed
by: WJ Rogers &
Associates
Durban
Ref: WJR/ALS/MEC
Tel: 031 1813 5896
Email:
director@durbanlegal.co.za
c/o: Pranesh Indrajith
Attorneys
Pietermaritzburg
Tel: 033 387 1410
Email:
director@durbanlegal.co.za
Tel: 076 455 2295
COUNSEL
FOR RESPONDENT:
K I MSHENGU
Instructed
by: Mbili Attorneys
Email:
zama.masondo@kzntransport.gov.za
Tenise.Ferreira@kznworks.gov.za
c/o: Mr Sibiya
Tel: 082 375 4742