- Court finds Mda repeated serious criminal allegations about Mbalula without proof or factual knowledge.
- Judge says the statements were untruthful and based on flimsy hearsay that cannot justify defamation.
- Leave to appeal dismissed with costs, meaning the apology and retraction order remains binding.
The High Court in Pretoria has refused Anele Mda permission to appeal a defamation judgment in favour of Fikile Mbalula, leaving her legally required to retract her statements, issue an apology and pay the legal costs of the case.
The ruling means that the earlier defamation order remains fully enforceable and brings immediate consequences, rather than necessitating another round of litigation.
Judge Selby Baqwa concluded that the case did not justify another hearing and that the application fell far short of the legal threshold for an appeal. “I am not persuaded that the applicant meets the test for leave to appeal on any of the two statutory provisions on which she relies,” Judge Baqwa wrote. He added, “I therefore stand by the reasons and orders set out in the judgment.”
Unverified allegations could not be defended
The dispute arose after Mda publicly associated Mbalula with serious criminal wrongdoing, including references linked to murder accusations and suggestions that portrayed him as implicated in unlawful conduct. The court found that she did not verify these claims and had no firsthand knowledge of their truth, but instead repeated what she had read in media reports as if it were an established fact.
In her affidavit, she admitted that she did “not purport to have any factual knowledge” of the allegations. That concession proved decisive. Republishing damaging accusations without proof does not shield a person from liability.
“It is trite that for an opinion to be considered fair comment, it must withstand the test of fairness; in other words, it ought to be based on truth,” Judge Baqwa said. He held that the “wrongfulness and unlawfulness which arise from the untruthfulness of the applicant’s statements” defeated any reliance on public interest or privilege.
He warned that allowing such conduct would mean “public figures such as Mr Mbalula would be fair game to character assassination and defamation of the worst kind without an iota of evidence.”
‘New evidence’ dismissed as flimsy hearsay
Mda attempted to rely on what she described as new evidence to justify an appeal, including statements allegedly attributed to a third party and repeated in an article. The court found that the supposed source had no connection to the dispute and that the material added nothing reliable or verifiable.
“The article referred to by the applicant was not authored by Mr Brian Mogotsi,” Judge Baqwa noted, adding that the individual “has no connection with the current matter.” He described the content as “a mere regurgitation of the same unsubstantiated report previously tendered before this court” and said there were “no prospects of persuading another court on such flimsy hearsay evidence,” stressing that probative value “cannot be achieved through hearsay evidence.”
Consequences for Mda
Under the Superior Courts Act, leave to appeal is granted only where there is a genuine chance that another court would reach a different outcome. “There is no sound, rational basis to conclude that there are reasonable prospects of success on appeal,” Judge Baqwa held before ordering, “The application for leave to appeal is dismissed with costs.”
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
