- The High Court stopped a Manor Estates resident from posting defamatory claims on Facebook and WhatsApp.
- Judge Chetty found repeated accusations of corruption and dishonesty against estate officials to be reckless and unsupported by evidence.
- The court imposed a punitive costs order after deciding the statements harmed the estate’s reputation and marketability.
The High Court in Durban has barred Manor Estates resident Sunil Pranpath from making defamatory claims against the Manor Estates Homeowners’ Association NPC and its officials on Facebook, WhatsApp, and other public platforms.
The application was brought by the association along with its chairperson Rohan James Eager, estate manager Victor Crowther, and operations manager William Murray. They asked the court to stop Pranpath from accusing them of corruption, dishonesty, and unlawful conduct in social media posts and public commentary.
Judge MR Chetty found that tensions started after Pranpath’s unit suffered water damage during heavy rains in 2019. Although he received compensation from his insurer, the dispute escalated when he tried to hold the homeowners’ association responsible for alleged structural defects in the estate.
The association denied liability and said any defects were the responsibility of the developer, who had since gone into liquidation.
According to the judgment, Pranpath then began what the applicants described as a campaign to damage the reputations of the association and its officials, using repeated WhatsApp messages and public claims.
Among the WhatsApp messages presented in court were statements where Pranpath called estate officials “crooks,” “snakes,” and “a dishonest bunch.” He also accused the association of “looting” residents’ money and claimed there was “a serious level of dishonesty” in the management of the estate.
The court also considered public posts where Pranpath warned possible buyers that Manor Estates was allegedly not compliant with the Community Schemes Ombud Service and questioned whether banks would finance purchases in the estate.
Judge Chetty found these statements created the impression that the Association and its officials were corrupt, dishonest, and unethical, with no evidence to support those claims.
Remarks found to be defamatory
Judge Chetty said the statements, taken in their ordinary meaning, could only be understood as undermining the reputation and integrity of the applicants.
The respondent argued that the exchanges took place within a private WhatsApp group and were therefore confidential. The court rejected this argument and ruled that publication occurs once defamatory material is shared with third parties.
Judge Chetty made a distinction between Pranpath’s factual complaints about leaks, mould, and defects in his unit and the broader allegations of corruption and dishonesty aimed at estate management.
The court found that comments made in newspaper articles about unresolved defects at the estate were not defamatory, as they amounted to factual complaints. However, public warnings on social media aimed at potential buyers crossed the line into unlawful conduct.
In one post on Ballito Classifieds, Pranpath warned prospective buyers that the estate was allegedly not compliant with the Community Schemes Ombud Service and questioned whether banks would finance purchases in the estate.
Judge Chetty found that these comments were meant to damage confidence in the estate and discourage potential buyers. The court said the clear intention was to put off buyers and tarnish the reputation of the Association, and at least Crowther.
The applicants also presented evidence that the estate had usually sold three to four units per month before the publication campaign started. According to the judgment, sales stopped completely in the following months.
Judge Chetty accepted that the statements harmed the estate’s reputation and marketability. Judge Chetty said, “The respondent’s statements were reckless and intentional.”
Freedom of expression has limits
Judge Chetty said that rights, even though entrenched, are not without limits. They do not extend to infringing on the dignity and good reputation of others.
The court granted a final interdict stopping Pranpath from making claims that the association or its officials were corrupt, dishonest, or unethical. He was also forbidden from harassing or intimidating Eager.
A punitive attorney and client costs order was granted after the court found that the respondent kept making serious allegations without evidence, despite repeated warnings from the Association.
Judge Chetty also confirmed that juristic persons, such as homeowner associations, are entitled to protect their reputations through defamation proceedings.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
