Kgamanyane v Molema

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Yacoob J
• Judgment Date: 19 September 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 3609 (GJ)
• Hearing Date: 19 September 2023
• Docket Number: 077356/2023
• Court: Gauteng Local Division, Johannesburg

Yacoob J:

The applicant approaches this Court on an urgent basis to obtain interdictory relief against the respondents restraining them from publishing defamatory allegations on social media and ordering them to remove existing defamatory material and publish a retraction.

The publications complained of are posts and videos posted to the social media platforms, TikTok and Instagram. The publications took place between 4 July and 25 July 2023.

2023 JDR 3609 p2

Yacoob J

The applicants consulted their attorneys on the 28 July and caused a letter to be send to the respondents that evening. The first respondent responded the following day declining to comply with the applicant’s request and instead herself requesting an apology from the respondents.

The applicants then issued papers on 3 August serving them at 18:18. The respondents filed their answering affidavit on 11 August after having been asked to do so by 8 August and the applicant’s filed a replying affidavit on 13 August.

According to the applicants the matter is inherently urgently because the respondent has posted comments, screenshots and videos which call them scammers, accusing them of having scammed the first respondent for money.

The dispute between them stems from a purchase the first respondent made through the second applicant’s Instagram account of two dresses. One of the dresses was the wrong size and they followed a back and forth about whether an exchange was possible, or a refund was necessary.

On 4 July, after it was clear that there was no exchange and the first respondent had not yet received her refund, the first respondent posted comments on the Instagram page of the second applicant calling the applicants scammers. The first applicant deleted these posts. The first applicant also apparently blocked the first respondent from that page.

2023 JDR 3609 p3

Yacoob J

There was some further back and forth and the second respondent apparently posted derogatory remarks on 11 July. However, the applicant was unaware of the relationship between the first and second respondents at that point.

The applicants informed the first respondent on the 13 July that they needed bank details for the refund. Apparently, this was because there was a problem with the payment platform Paygate. It is unclear whether the respondents were informed of that problem.

On 14 July, after the bank details had been requested and provided a video was posted which again called the applicants...