About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
>>
2026
>>
[2026] ZAGPPHC 191
|
|
Reviron Services (Pty) Ltd v Bekker and Others (2025-232215) [2026] ZAGPPHC 191 (18 February 2026)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
CASE
NO: 2025-232215
(1)
REPORTABLE :
(2)
OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES:
(3)
REVISED.
DATE
18/02/2026
SIGNATURE
REVIRON
SERVICES
(PTY) LTD
Applicant
and
HEINDRIGHT
BEKKER
First
Respondent
PERINBAM
BEKKER
Second
Respondent
BERNICE
TRILLING
Third
Respondent
ELAINE
MARKUS
Fourth
Respondent
KARIEN
DU TOIT
Fifth Respondent
JUDGMENT
MBONGWE,
J:
INTRODUCTION
[1]
The
applicant
has brought
this
application
on an urgent
basis
in terms of
Rule 6 (12)
seeking
final
interdictory
orders
against
the 1
st
and 2
nd
respondents
on
the
grounds
of
alleged
defamation
.
The
relief
sought
against
the
3
r
d
to
5
th
respondents is
no longer relevant in
this
matter
.
BACKGROUND
MATRIX
[2]
The 1
st
and
2
nd
respondents
had, through their project manager
,
engaged
t
he
services of the applicant, an electrical services company
,
to do
electrical work at their residence. The work has not been completed
owing to disputes that have arisen relating to the extent
and quality
of the work and the alleged difference in the amount originally
quoted for the work
.
[3]
Dissatisfied
,
the 1
st
and
2
nd
respondents
posted, anonymously
,
articles in
t
he
residents group Facebook page
,
on 31 October
2025 and 1 November 2025
,
wherein they
,
without naming
the Applicant
,
essentially
decried their
experiences with their electrician
,
(the
Applicant), albeit without mentioning its name
,
and enquired
if other
residents had had similar experiences
and how they
resolved the matter
.
[4]
On or about 15
November 2025
,
and in
response to an invitation for recommendations for a reliable
electrician by another resident on the same Facebook group page
,
the
respondents responded
'
Do
not use Reviron
,
they
w
ill
rob you
,
we were
done R600k
'
and
'
Don
'
t
use Reviron
,
Rob
will rob you
,
we were
done
R600k
'.
These
comments
form the basis
for these
proceedings
.
[5]
The
director(s)
of
the applicant
,
who
are also
resident
in
the same
residential
area as the respondents
,
became aware
of the aforementioned comments by the respondents
.
About fifteen
(15) days after publication of the comments
,
t
he
applicant sent correspondence to the respondents demanding that they
remove their comments
within 48
hours
,
failing
which,
action will be
taken against
them
.
The
respondents
responded
promptly
to
the
demand
and
confirmed
that
they have
removed the impugned
comments
from the group
Facebook
page
.
[6]
In the
meantime, the Applicant established that the authors of the anonymous
postings of 31 October 2025 and 1 November 2025 were
the third to
fifth respondents -
hence their
citation in these proceedings. However
,
the 1
st
and 2
nd
respondents later admitted that they were
,
in fact, the
authors of those anonymous posts
.
This admission
resulted in the Applicant abandoning
the relief
sought against the 3
rd
to 5
th
respondents.
[7]
The applicant
launched this application against the respondents on an urgent basis
on 28 November 2025 and attempted to have the
same served
,
i
n
particular, on
the first and second respondents on the same day at their
residence
,
the
construction site
,
despite
knowing that the respondents had not been living there since the
commencement of the renovations
.
As was to be
expected
,
a
return of non-service
was issued by
the Sheriff
.
[8]
Three days
later
,
on
1 December 2025
,
the Applicant
effected a meaningful service of the Application on the 1
st
and
2
nd
respondents
via email. In that application, the Applicant sought the following
orders
:
a)
"
That
the 1
s
t
and 2
nd
respondents are
i
nterdicted
and restrained from
;
publishing
or releasing any public statements concerning or otherw
i
se
relating to the applicant in any form
;
b)
Making
any communication
,
whether
in writing
,
electronically
on social
media
platforms
,
telephonically
or in person
,
that
insult and or seek to undermine or harm the applicant's reputation
and dignity
;
c)
Defaming
,
insulting
and
tarnishing
the
Applicant's
good
name
and
reputation in any manne
r,
way, or
form
;
d)
Publishing
injurious falsehoods about the Applicant and/or in reference
t
o
the
Appl
i
cant
;
e)
That
the
1
st
and
2
nd
respondents
remove
any and all communication
,
whether
in writing
,
including
electronically or on social media platforms
,
telephonically
or in person that insults and/or undermines or harms the applicant
'
s
reputation and dignity
;
f)
That
the 1
st
and 2
nd
respondents
remove and delete any defaming
,
insulting
and tarnishing social media posts
,
which
directly or by implication insult and/or tarnishes and/or defames the
applicant's good name and reputation in
any manner, way or
form;
g)
That
the 1
s
t
and
2
nd
respondents
remove and/or delete their social media posts which either directly
or by implication had injurious falsehoods about
the applicant and/or
in reference to the applicant;
h)
That
the 1
st
and
2
nd
respondents
provide a written public apology to the applicants on their social
media platforms and on the Midstream Estate Owners
and Tenants ONLY
Facebook Group.
i)
That
the 1
s
t
and
2
nd
respondents
be ordered to pay the costs of this application on an attorney and
client scale
,
the one
paying
,
the
other to be absolved
."
OPPOSITION
A.
POINTS IN LIMINE
LACK
OF URGENCY
[9]
Premised on
the contention that the trigger dates for the urgent application were
on 31 October 2025 and 1 November 2025, the dates
of publication of
the impugned messages
,
the-Respondents
contended that the Applicant's issuing of the urgent application on
28 November 2025 evidence the absence of urgency
and that urgency
was
,
therefore
,
self -
created
.
Furthermore
,
the
Respondents contend that Applicant's waiting for a further three days
after the unsuccessful service of the application on 28
November
2025
,
and
effective service on 1 December 2025
,
at an address
known to the Applicant to be a mere construction site
,
is again
evidence that the application was never urgent
,
or that
urgency has been self-created
.
The
Respondents seek the dismissal of the urgent application with costs,
accordingly.
B.DEFENCES
INCOMPETENCE
OF THE RELIEF SOUGHT BY THE APPLICANT
[10]
The
respondents
contend
further that
the Applicant's launching of the urgent application seeking final
interdictory relief about four
weeks
after the
impugned posts had been removed was ill-conceived as the cause of
complaint no longer existed. The order sought would
,
consequently,
serve no
practical purpose.
NON-OFFENSIVE
POSTS
[11]
The
Respondents contend that there is nothing defamatory in the remaining
unanimous posts of 31 October 2025 and 1 November 2025
;
neither post
mentions the names of the Applicant or any of its employees and that
these posts merely express alarm about the amount
they have been
charged for electrical work, dissatisfaction with services that had
been rendered to them, and seek advice from
the members of the group.
The Applicant
'
s
demand for
their
removal lacks
grounding, so contend the Respondents.
THE
LAW
[12]
An
unexplained delay in launching an urgent application is considered
fatal because it suggests that the matter is not truly urgent.
A
failure to explain
the
delay
in
an application
for
condonation may be
fatal
(see
Aspen
Holdings
(Pty)
Ltd
v Phelane and Another)
[1]
.
REQUIREMENTS
FOR URGENCY
[13]
The requirements for
agency are governed primarily by rule 6(12) of the Uniform Rules of
Court. The rule allows a court to dispense
with the normal forms
,
service
and
time periods for applications in deserving cases
.
To succeed in
an urgent application
,
an applicant
must satisfy two core requirements in the founding affidavit.
Firstly
,
the
Applicant must explain the explicit circumstances of urgency
.
The applicant
must set forth explicitly the specific circumstances that render the
matter
urgent;
this
involves
showing
a
real
ongoing
or
imminent
threat
of
harm or
injustice that requires immediate intervention
.
Secondly, the
lack of substantial redress
.
The applicant
must provide
reasons
why
they would
not be able to
obtain substantial redress if the matter were heard in the ordinary
course.
Urgency must not be self-created
.
CONDONATION
[15]
Despite the
delay of four weeks in launching the urgent application
,
the Applicant
failed to explain the delay and seek condonation
.
This may be
fatal
,
even
where condonation has been refused for lack of a reasonable
explanation
for the delay.
[16]
Section 16(2)
of Act 10 of 2013 precludes the granting of an order
i
n
circumstances where the order interdicting the Respondents
,
in casu
,
will no
longer serve a practical purpose
.
The cause of
the complaint had already been removed when this application was
launched by the Applicant.
CONCLUSION
[17]
Following
t
he
findings on the sh
o
rtcomings
of the Applicant in this judgment
,
thi
s
application stands to be dism
i
ssed
.
ORDER
[18]
In line with
the conclusion
above
,
the following
order is made
;
1.
The matter is
not urgent.
2.
The
application
is
dismissed.
3.
The Applicant
is to pay
the costs of
this application
,
including
the costs
consequent
upon the
appointment
of
two
counsel
on
scale C
.
MPN MBONGWE
JUDGE
OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG
DIVISION
PRETORIA
APPEARANCES
For
the Applicant
Advocate
T Ellerbeck
Instructed
by
Nathea
Smith Attorneys
For
the First Respondent
Advocate
AJ Glendinning
Advocate
AJ Cronje
Instructed
by
Otto
Krause Incorporated
Date
of Hearing:
10
December
2025
Date
of Judgement:
18
February
2026
THIS
JUDGEMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES' LEGAL
REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINE ON 18 FEBRUARY 2026.
[1]
2025-4
BLLR -409
-LAC.