This blog is co-authored by Art Wynberg, candidate attorney.
In December 2025, the High Court confirmed that a defamation action may commence in the jurisdiction where the allegedly defamatory material was read, even if the defendant does not reside or conduct business in that area.
The plaintiff operated a wildlife‑related business that included game farming and activities open to the public. The defendant, an animal‑welfare organisation, conducted several inspections on the plaintiff’s farm and reported on such inspections in a national newspaper. The newspaper published allegations that the plaintiff had neglected the animals and that criminal charges were being investigated.
The plaintiff read the article in the North West Province, regarded the statements as defamatory, and commenced a defamation action in the North West division of the High Court.
The defendant raised a special plea of jurisdiction arguing that the general rule requiring legal proceedings to be brought where the defendant resides applied. Given that the defendant does not reside in the North West, the defendant contended that the North West High Court lacked jurisdiction.
The plaintiff asserted that the defamation action could properly be heard in the North West High Court because the publication was read in that court’s area of jurisdiction. Publication, as a requirement of defamation, occurs where the material is accessed or viewed.
South African law generally requires the plaintiff to ascertain where the defendant resides and to cause summons to be served there. However, a division of the High Court may assume jurisdiction if the cause of action arose within its area. If there are two divisions of the High Court before which a legal proceeding may be brought, then either division may hear the matter.
In defamation matters, the place of publication is not where the material originates but where it is read, accessed, or downloaded. A defamation strikes home in the jurisdiction where the publication is read.
Because national publications, whether printed or digital, may be accessed across multiple regions, more than one division of the High Court may have jurisdiction, and a plaintiff may select any competent division unless doing so would amount to an abuse of process.
On appeal, the relevant question was whether the publication had been read within the North West high court’s jurisdiction. The defamatory statement was published in a national newspaper. Publication of a defamatory statement is presumed if it is proved that a newspaper containing the statement was sold or distributed to the public. Accordingly, any division of the High Court could be vested with jurisdiction if the publication is read in that court’s area of jurisdiction.
South African courts generally will not decline jurisdiction where the cause of action arose within their area.
Defamation protects one’s reputation in the eyes of others. Therefore, a plaintiff must prove that someone besides the plaintiff accessed the material in that jurisdiction.
Steinman and Others v NSPCA and Others (Appeal) [2025] ZANWHC 271