This blog was co-authored by William Hayne, Candidate Attorney.
In this case the court addressed significant issues surrounding privacy, defamation, and the appropriate relief for such claims.
The respondents had published a video on social media that included the claimant’s personal information and allegedly defamatory content. The claimant claimed that this publication breached his right to privacy, under the Protection of Personal Information Act (POPIA), and defamed him.
The claimant sought an urgent interdict to stop publication and a public apology.
The court had to address several key legal questions, including whether it should interdict the respondents from broadcasting the claimant’s personal information, order the removal of the video from social media, and whether the claimant was entitled to a public apology.
The court granted an interdict prohibiting the respondents from broadcasting the claimant’s personal information and ordered the removal of the video from all social media platforms. It found that the dissemination of the claimant’s cell phone number on social media constituted a breach of POPIA and the common-law right to privacy.
Regarding the defamation claim, the court found that the statement by the respondents calling the claimant “evil,” was defamatory. The claimant carried on business as a funeral service provider and the statement would undermine his reputation and business.
The court refused to grant the claimant’s request for a public apology. The reasoning was twofold:
- A public apology is not a recognised remedy for a privacy violation or a breach of POPIA. The interdict was sufficient remedy and ordering a public apology would not add any significant value to the relief already granted through the interdict.
- An apology cannot be made in isolation of a damages claim.
This decision underscores the importance of adhering to privacy laws such as POPIA. The case reaffirms that an interdict can be an appropriate remedy for breaches of privacy and defamation under South African law.
Munetsi v Madhuyu and Another (16255/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 209