- The High Court in Johannesburg examined four serious allegations made in WhatsApp voice notes circulated by community member Frederik Johannes van As.
- Judge LR Adams found only the allegation blaming Harmony Gold for Deelkraal Village’s electricity disconnection was false and defamatory.
- The court granted limited relief, refused to order the removal of the voice notes and directed each party to pay its own legal costs.
Four explosive allegations circulated in WhatsApp voice notes about Harmony Gold were put under the microscope in the High Court in Johannesburg, where only one was ultimately found to be false and defamatory.
Judge LR Adams delivered the judgment after Harmony Gold Mining Company Limited approached the court seeking declarations that a series of statements made by Frederik Johannes van As on a Deelkraal Village community WhatsApp group with about 330 members were false and defamatory.
The mining company also sought an interdict preventing further publication of the voice notes and an order compelling Van As to remove them from social media, arguing the allegations were false, malicious, had harmed its reputation and threatened the safety of its employees.
Instead of treating the voice notes as a whole, the court examined each allegation individually before deciding whether it crossed the line into defamation.
Long-running dispute set the scene
The dispute stemmed from the 2009 sale of Deelkraal Village by Harmony Gold and its wholly owned subsidiary, Randfontein Estates Limited, to the Deelkraal Behuising Trust.
Under the agreement, the trust assumed responsibility for utility services, including electricity. However, it never concluded a new electricity supply agreement with Eskom, leaving Randfontein Estates bound by its existing contract with the power utility. The disagreement over electricity continued for years.
In 2017, Harmony obtained a court order authorising it to enter properties, read electricity meters and collect electricity and water charges from occupiers on behalf of the trust. The court order authorised Harmony to exercise those rights but did not oblige it to do so.
Harmony later encountered interference with metering infrastructure, intimidation of contractors and threats of violence while attempting to implement the order.
In August 2024, it notified Eskom that it intended terminating the electricity supply agreement and transferring the point of delivery to the trust. Eskom disconnected electricity to Deelkraal Village on or about 15 August 2025. Three days later, Van As published the WhatsApp voice notes that became the subject of the litigation.
Four allegations before the court
Harmony challenged four principal allegations contained in the WhatsApp voice notes. Harmony disputed four main claims made in the WhatsApp voice notes. According to the company, Van As wrongly accused Harmony of running a criminal syndicate in Deelkraal Village, claiming that its senior manager, John Machete, told members of this group to shoot or kill him.
Van As also alleged that Harmony committed “economic terrorism” by urging residents not to pay rent to the Deelkraal Behuising Trust and said the company played a role in Eskom cutting electricity to the village.
The judgment also records that the voice notes accused Harmony chief executive Beyers Nel of ordering criminal activities and alleged the company orchestrated the destruction of its own substation. Harmony maintained the allegations had no factual foundation and continued to damage its reputation.
Van As admitted making the statements but denied they were false. He relied principally on the defence that the allegations were substantially true and published in the public interest. He also argued Harmony had alternative remedies, including a damages claim, and that there was no reasonable apprehension of future harm.
Court outlines defamation principles
Before considering the facts, Judge Adams set out the legal principles governing defamation. He explained that defamation involves the wrongful and intentional publication of a defamatory statement and that recognised defences include truth in the public interest and fair comment.
Referring to the Supreme Court of Appeal’s decision in Economic Freedom Fighters and Others v Manuel, the judge said the central issue was whether the impugned statements were demonstrably false. He also noted that retractions and apologies are closely linked to damages claims and are generally inappropriate for determination in motion proceedings.
Electricity allegation crossed the line
Judge Adams found only one of the four principal allegations to be false and defamatory. The court held that Van As’s claim that Harmony was responsible for Eskom disconnecting electricity to Deelkraal Village was demonstrably false.
“The court order most definitely does not state what Mr Van As believes it does,” Judge Adams said after rejecting Van As’s interpretation of the earlier electricity judgment.
He concluded, “The statement by Mr Van As that Harmony Gold is responsible for the supply of electricity to Deelkraal Village being disrupted is evidently false.”
The judge added that Harmony had lawfully terminated its electricity supply agreement with Eskom and requested the transfer of the point of delivery to the Deelkraal Behuising Trust.
“Harmony Gold had during 2025 given notice to Eskom of cancellation of the electricity supply agreement, and they requested Eskom to transfer the point of delivery of the electricity to the DB Trust. They were fully within their right to do so,” he said.
Other allegations not declared defamatory
The court reached a different conclusion on the remaining allegations. Judge Adams found there appeared to be “some truth” to claims that Harmony, through its property manager John Machete, had contributed to tensions within the Deelkraal Village community, although he observed that the allegations were expressed in emotive language.
“There appears to be some truth in this allegation by the respondent, albeit that it is stated and couched in emotive language,” the judge said. “I therefore do not accept that these publications by Mr Van As were per se false and/or defamatory.”
The court also examined evidence from a community meeting during which Machete allegedly responded “Shoot him?” before later referring to the need to “burn something”. Van As argued those remarks formed the basis for his belief that Harmony representatives had encouraged violence against him.
Judge Adams accepted that the available evidence substantially supported Van As’s interpretation. “The point is that the evidence demonstrates that it is substantially true that Mr Machete, as a representative of Harmony Gold, had intimated that harm should be done to the person and the property of Mr Van As,” he said.
“It follows that it cannot be said with any conviction that Mr Van As made and published these statements falsely, let alone with malicious intent to defame Harmony Gold.”
The judge was also critical of Machete’s role in the dispute, saying he “did very little to nothing to try and alleviate the tension between the community and Harmony Gold” and instead “fuelled the fire”.
Court grants limited relief
Having found only one allegation to be false and defamatory, the court declared that the claim blaming Harmony for the electricity disconnection constituted false, misleading and defamatory information.
Judge Adams interdicted Van As from publishing defamatory voice notes or other false, misleading or defamatory information concerning Harmony Gold and from harassing or threatening the company, its employees or business associates.
However, the judge refused Harmony’s request for an order compelling Van As to remove the WhatsApp voice notes, finding that such relief could not be granted in motion proceedings.
Each side bears its own costs
Although Harmony succeeded in relation to the electricity allegation, Van As successfully defended several of the company’s claims.
Judge Adams found both parties had achieved a measure of success and ordered each to bear its own legal costs.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
