Authored By: Yamkela Boqo
University of South Africa
- Case title and Citation
Mbuyiseni v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Others [2023] ZAGPJHC 106
- Court Name & Bench
High Court of South Africa, Gauteng Division, Johannesburg
Presiding Judge: Wilson J
- Bench Type: Single Judge Bench
- Date of Judgement
19 September 2023
- Parties Involved
Applicant: Dr. Mbuyiseni Ndlozi, a famous South African politician and former
Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) spokesperson.
Respondents: Media 24 (publisher of the Daily Sun), journalist Amos Manayetso, and the
Daily Sun’s editor.
- Facts of the Case
On April 11, 2021, journalist Amos Manayetso obtained information from a confidential SAPS source indicating that Dr. Ndlozi had been identified in a rape accusation. The Daily Sun published a story the same day, naming Dr. Ndlozi as the suspect and providing facts from the complainant’s statement, including the case number. The article was published before formal charges were filed or the investigation was completed.
Dr. Ndlozi refuted the charges and initiated a defamation lawsuit against the publisher, journalist, and editor. He argued that the release was premature, defamatory, and infringed on his constitutional rights of dignity and privacy. He sought declaratory and interdictive remedies in motion procedures, with damages decided by oral testimony.
- Issues Raised
Was the publication defamatory under South African law? Could the respondents rely on the defence of truth and public benefit? Was the hybrid procedure seeking declaratory relief via motion and reserving damages for oral evidence legally permissible?
Did the complainant’s confidentiality interests outweigh the public’s right to know?
- Arguments of the Party
The applicant (Dr. Ndlozi) Argued that the publishing was premature and defamatory, inflicting reputational and emotional hardship.
It was argued that violating confidentially at such an early level was not justified in the public interest.
He claimed that the article infringed his constitutional rights to dignity and privacy (sections 10 and 14).
In Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC), the Constitutional Court ruled that even true remarks can be defamatory if they unjustifiably injure reputation.
Respondents (Media 24 and Others)
Claimed the item was true and based on verified SAPS data.
Dr. Ndlozi’s public status made the topic of public interest, according to the argument. It was maintained that the journalist acted appropriately and ethically. Relied on National Media Ltd v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA), which allows media to publish defamatory material if it is done responsibly and in the public interest.
- Judgement
Justice Wilson’s decision in Mbuyiseni v Media 24 is a delicate balance of constitutional rights, procedural fairness, and rising standards of media accountability. The court’s decisions touched both the substantive and procedural aspects of South African defamation law.
Procedural Innovation: Hybrid Relief.
The court supported the applicant’s use of a hybrid method, seeking declaratory and interdictory relief through motion proceedings while leaving the claim for damages to be assessed through oral evidence. This strategy, while novel, was deemed suitable given the urgency and extent of the reputational injury. Justice Wilson stressed that when the facts are mostly undisputed and the harm is ongoing, motion processes can be an appropriate vehicle for partial relief. 1
Substantive finding: wrongfulness and defamation.
The court determined that the publishing was wrongful and defamatory. Although the report was based on a legitimate complaint filed with SAPS, it’s premature publication— prior to any formal investigation or charge was unwarranted. The naming of Dr. Ndlozi as a rape suspect without enough public interest rationale caused reputational harm. Justice Wilson noted that defamation in South African law is not limited to falsehood.
Even a true statement might be defamatory if it unjustly harms reputation2. The court determined that the respondents failed to demonstrate that the publication served a legitimate public purpose, particularly considering the sensitivity of the charges and the early stage of the investigation. confidentiality and dignity.
The court’s emphasis on confidentiality in sexual crime cases was an important part of the decision. Justice Wilson pointed out that both the complainant and the accused have fundamental rights to dignity and privacy3. The media’s decision to disclose identifying information without balancing these interests was deemed reckless and detrimental.
The decision is consistent with the Constitutional Court’s approach in Khumalo v Holomisa, which found that freedom of expression must be weighed against the right to dignity. 4 In this instance, the court determined that the respondents did not conduct the balancing exercise adequately.
Relief Granted
The court granted declaratory relief, deeming the publishing improper and defamatory. It also issued an injunction, prohibiting further publishing of comparable content. The demand for damages was postponed for oral testimony, allowing the petitioner to offer comprehensive evidence of harm.
Justice Wilson’s decision establishes a precedent for how courts can respond to urgent reputational harm in the digital era. It recognizes that, while media freedom is safeguarded, it is not absolute and must be utilized with constitutional sensitivity and procedural care.
- Ratio Decidendi
The court’s reasoning was based on three main legal principles: Defamation Requires More Than Truth: A statement may be factually correct, but if it unjustifiably destroys a person’s reputation and provides no public benefit, it is nonetheless improper. The defence of truth must be accompanied with clear public interest. 5
Confidentiality in sexual offense allegations is paramount. Even if the media has verifiable facts, premature revelation, particularly in sensitive cases, may violate both the complainant’s and the accused’s constitutional rights to dignity and privacy. 6
Hybrid Relief Is Procedurally Valid: The court confirmed that applicants can seek declaratory and interdictive relief through motion proceedings, with damages reserved for oral evidence. This adaptable technique is suited for situations with immediate reputational harm.
10.Significance and Commentary
The judge’s decision in Mbuyiseni v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Others [2023]. ZAGPJHC 1062 is a seminal case in South African defamation law, notably in terms of digital media and constitutional rights. Its relevance is based on several major dimensions:
A shift towards procedural flexibility. Justice Wilson’s acceptance of a hybrid procedure motions for declaratory and interdictory relief, with damages reserved for oral evidence-indicates a pragmatic shift in civil litigation. This strategy prioritizes access to justice and response to reputational injury, particularly in cases involving public personalities and urgent media exposure. It demonstrates the judiciary’s willingness to adjust procedural principles to the realities of digital defamation, where reputational harm can quickly increase.
Reaffirming the Constitutional Balancing Act.
The decision supports the fundamental premise that rights are not absolute. Section 16 of the Constitution guarantees freedom of expression, but it must be balanced with sections 10 (dignity) and 14 (privacy). The court’s proportionality analysis is consistent with the Constitutional Court’s approach in Khumalo v Holomisa, where it was determined that the media’s right to publish must be balanced against the individual’s right to reputation and fair treatment. 8
In Mbuyiseni, the court determined that the respondents failed to carry out this balancing process adequately. The premature disclosure of sensitive claims, without sufficient
public interest justification, was found to be improper and defamatory. This establishes a precedent for more careful, constitutionally sensitive journalism.
Media Ethics and Accountability
The decision sends a strong message to media outlets: ethical journalism is more than just factual accuracy. It necessitates appropriate timing, contextual awareness, and a thorough evaluation of public value. The court’s emphasis on the complainant’s confidentiality interests, particularly in sexual crime cases, underscores the importance of media protection for vulnerable parties and avoiding sensationalism.
This is especially pertinent in the age of digital media, where tales may go viral in minutes. The decision urges journalists to check not only the facts, but also the ethical consequences of publication.
Implications for Public Figures
For public people such as Dr. Ndlozi, the case highlights the fragility of reputation in the face of premature and unverified reporting. When those rights are violated, they are entitled to seek remedies. The decision may encourage other public figures to fight defamatory materials, especially where reputational loss is immediate and severe.
Bibliography
Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC)
Khumalo v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401 (CC)
Mbuyiseni v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Others [2023] ZAGPJHC 1062
National Media Ltd v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196 (SCA)
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996
