1
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
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
Case Number: 2026-089305
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: NO
DATE 22/05/2026
SIGNATURE
In the matter between:
PHENYO MEKGOE Applicant
and
OFENTSE TLADI Respondent
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________
MBONGWE, J:
INTRODUCTION
[1] This matter comes before me as an urgent application in which the Applicant
seeks a final interdict against the Respondent, arising from the publication of
statements on social media alleged to be defamatory.
2
[2] The Respondent opposes the application, contending that the Applicant
himself violated her rights by posting a pornographic video without concealing
her identity, and that the urgent application is an abuse of process.
URGENCY
[3] The Applicant argues that the matter is urgent because the defamatory
statements continue to circulate online, causing ongoing harm to his dignity,
reputation, and safety. He points to threats received from social media users
as evidence of irreparable harm.
[4] The Respondent disputes urgency, relying on Rule 6(12) and case law such
as Luna Meubel Vervaardigers v Makin 1 arguing that the Applicant has not
demonstrated why substantial redress cannot be obtained in due course.
[5] Having considered both submissions, I am satisfied that the matter is urgent.
The continued publication of the statements, coupled with threats to the
Applicant’s safety, justify truncation of time periods under Rule 6(12).
THE REQUIREMENTS FOR A FINAL INTERDICT
[6] The requirements for a final interdict are well established in Setlogelo v
Setlogelo2:
a) A clear right;
b) An injury actually committed or reasonably apprehended;
1 1977 (4) SA 135 (W).
2 Setlogelo v Setlogelo 1914 AD 221.
3
c) No adequate alternative remedy.
CLEAR RIGHT
[7] Section 10 of the Constitution guarantees the right to dignity. The Applicant’s
right to reputation and dignity is implicated by the Respondent’s statements.
[8] The Respondent does not deny publishing the statements but insists they are
truthful. However, she has not produced evidence substantiating her
allegations.
INJURY
[9] The Applicant has demonstrated injury through the defamatory nature of the
statements and the threats received from third parties. The Respondent’s
conduct has resulted in reputational harm and risk to the Applicant’s safety.
NO ADEQUATE ALTERNATIVE REMEDY
[10] While damages may be sought in a separate action, such remedy would not
prevent ongoing harm. Only an interdict can provide immediate relief.
RESPONDENT’S DEFENCE
4
[11] The Respondent argues that the Applicant violated her rights by posting a
pornographic video without concealing her identity, thereby contravening the
Cybercrimes Act and Film and Publications Amendment Act.
[12] While this allegation is serious, it is not the subject of the present application.
The Respondent is entitled to pursue her remedies in law, but it does not
justify the continued publication of defamatory statements that incite violence
against the Applicant.
BALANCING OF RIGHTS
[13] The Court must balance the Applicant’s right to dignity and reputation against
the Respondent’s right to freedom of expression under Section 16 of the
Constitution.
[14] Freedom of expression does not extend to incitement of violence or
defamatory publication. The Respondent’s conduct falls outside the
permissible scope of Section 16.
CONCLUSION
[15] The Applicant has established all the requirements for a final interdict. The
Respondent’s grievances regarding the pornographic video are not
disregarded, but they must be pursued through appropriate legal channels.
5
ORDER
[16] In the circumstances, the following order is made:
1. The Respondent is interdicted from publishing or republishing the defamatory
statements concerning the Applicant on any social media platform.
2. The Respondent is directed to remove the defamatory statements from her
X/Twitter account (@ o[...]) and any other social media accounts under her
control, within two (2) court days of this order.
3. The Respondent is ordered to publish a full and unconditional apology within
two (2) court days of this order, on the same platforms where the defamatory
statements were made.
4. There is no order as to costs.
_____________________________
MPN MBONGWE
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
APPEARENCES
For Applicant: ADV HM MAHLANGU
Instructed by: Magolego Attorneys
For the First Respondent: ADV BMWM MAILA
Instructed by: MBC Attorneys Inc.
Date of Hearing: 28 April 2026
Date of Judgement: 22 May 2026
6
THIS JUDGEMENT WAS ELECTRONICALLY TRANSMITTED TO THE PARTIES’
LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES AND UPLOADED ONTO CASELINE ON 22 MAY
2026.