The Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg has concluded a notable case that has unfolded over nearly two years, involving a defamation dispute between a conveyancer and an estate agent
In a judgment delivered by Acting Judge Adrian Friedman, the court noted the unusual duration of the case, with the original incidents occurring in September 2022 but only coming to a judicial resolution in October 2024. The heart of the matter involved a WhatsApp message and subsequent correspondence from the respondent, an estate agent, that were deemed defamatory towards the applicant, who works as a director at his law firm.
On 10 April 2022, the respondent sent a WhatsApp communication to the managing director of the firm. The message enclosed a photograph of the applicant without his shirt on in what might be describe as a mildly controversial, according to the Judge Friedman, but certainly not shocking, pose, together with the caption: “[t]his is the man u [sic] have working for u [sic]”. It seems that the respondent also sent the WhatsApp message, or just the photo, to his ex-wife Ms T together with a message informing her that he had sent it to the managing director (who he described as the applicant’s boss) and saying that “karma was coming” for the applicant and Ms T.
On the same day, he sent a further text message to Ms T describing her and the applicant as evil, and once again, mentioning karma. On 22 April 2022, the applicant’s attorney wrote to the respondent seeking undertakings from in relation to the WhatsApp message and asserted various rights arising from the Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013.
He complained about the nature of the romantic relationship between the applicant and Ms T, raising issues which were relevant to the conduct of that relationship outside of the work environment and the implication of that relationship for the respondent’s minor children. In essence, the respondent accused the applicant and Ms T of behaving inappropriately in relation to their sex life, in a way which was affecting the minor children negatively. He also accused the applicant of being a risk to his minor children because he was a “dronkie” and “wild on booze”.
In his application to the court, the applicant sought to enforce an undertaking made by the respondent, which stated he would refrain from making any defamatory statements. Significantly, it was asserted that while the respondent had offered this undertaking, he later failed to adhere to it, leading to the present court case.
Judge Friedman concluded with an order that the respondent is indeed bound by the undertaking given and must refrain from further defamatory speech towards the applicant, save for what is permitted by law. The respondent was also ordered not to disseminate, to any person, any communication and/or material which is defamatory of the applicant save for purposes that the law permits.
#Conviction
