- Urgent application justified due to ongoing reputational harm caused by the online review.
- Court finds the review presented an incomplete and misleading version of events, not a fair comment.
- Final interdict granted, ordering the removal of the review and awarding costs against the tenant.
A landlord successfully secured an urgent court order forcing the removal of a Google review after the court found that the post misrepresented a settled deposit dispute and falsely suggested unlawful conduct.
Heiberg Estates CC approached the High Court in Pretoria after Renee Maritz published a review implying that the agency routinely withheld tenant deposits unfairly. The court found that the review left out critical facts, including the terms of the lease agreement, the condition of the property on exit, and the fact that the dispute had already been resolved between the parties.
Judge JJ Strijdom made it clear that the issue was not whether tenants are entitled to express dissatisfaction, but whether they can do so by presenting a distorted version of events that damages another party’s reputation.
Background and lease dispute
Heiberg Estates CC entered into a lease agreement with Renee Maritz, with Cornelius Johannes Maritz also cited in the proceedings. The lease set out the terms for rental payments, the handling of the deposit, and penalties for early termination.
The tenants vacated the property in December 2025 without proper notice, despite an earlier arrangement to remain until January 2026. The landlord only found out they had left after the fact.
An inspection carried out after the keys were returned revealed damage to the property along with the need for cleaning and repainting. The landlord withheld a portion of the deposit in line with the lease agreement and later reached a settlement with the tenants, paying back R4 500.
Judge Strijdom recorded, “The respondents were informed of the state of affairs… and they were informed that the deposit… will be withheld in accordance with the penalty clause.”
The Google review and findings on defamation
Despite the settlement having been reached, Maritz went on to publish a Google review suggesting that deposits were withheld unfairly and implying that other tenants had experienced the same treatment.
The court rejected the argument that this amounted to fair comment. Judge Strijdom held that the review was presented as fact rather than opinion and that it failed to disclose important aspects of the dispute.
The court found, “The review does not relay the entirety of the facts to the public,” and further noted that it created the impression that deposits were withheld unlawfully when this was not supported by the evidence.
Leaving out key facts, including the agreed settlement and the damage to the property, made the review misleading.
Judge Strijdom went further, stating, “If it had been the intention… to publish a fair review, she would have made mention of the fact that the terms of the lease agreement regulated the repayment of her deposit… and the fact that the parties had reached a settlement.”
The court also took issue with the broader claim that other tenants routinely forfeited their deposits, noting that no evidence had been provided to back this up.
Urgency and ongoing harm
The court accepted that the matter was urgent, rejecting the argument that the landlord could simply wait for relief through the ordinary court process.
Judge Strijdom emphasised that online reviews have an immediate and lasting impact, noting that false statements left on public platforms cause ongoing harm for as long as they remain visible.
The court found, “The harm that the applicant will suffer is continuous and ongoing for so long as the untrue defamatory statements are allowed to stay on the Google website.”
This continuing reputational damage justified the court stepping in urgently.
Final interdict granted
The court confirmed that all the requirements for a final interdict had been met. The landlord had a clear right not to be defamed, had shown ongoing harm, and had no other remedy available that could offer immediate protection.
Judge Strijdom held, “Half-truths and false statements aimed at defaming an applicant cannot be allowed to be left on any public platform.”
The court ordered that the review be taken down within one day and directed the respondent to pay costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
1 Comment
This really is beyond ridiculous, I really feel for these people.