LPL4802
Assignment 1
Semester 2 – 2024
The primary objective of defamation legislation in South Africa is to safeguard persons'
reputations from unwarranted damage. The law offers a means for individuals to seek
compensation when their reputation, honour, or standing is deliberately damaged by
a defamatory statement. This safeguard is not just for the purpose of the individual,
but also for the social concern of upholding individual dignity and personal integrity.
The Mdlekeza v Gallie 2021 (4) 531 (WCC) case offers a comprehensive analysis of
defamation principles and the corresponding claim for damages under the South
African legal framework.
Elements of defamation
In South African law, defamation is often described as the deliberate and unlawful act
of publishing a remark that harms the reputation of the plaintiff. In order for a comment
to be classified as defamatory, it must diminish the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of
morally upright individuals in society. The components of defamation encompass:
1. Wrongfulness: The publication must be deemed defamatory, indicating that it
unjustly damages the plaintiff's reputation.
, 2. Intentionality: The defendant must have possessed the deliberate intention to
harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or alternatively, should have been aware that
their acts would most likely lead to the act of damaging the plaintiff's reputation.
3. Publication: The defamatory comment must be conveyed to a third party, not the
person who is suing.
4. Defamatory Nature: The comment must diminish the plaintiff's reputation in the
perception of others.
In Casu
In this instance, the court initially analysed the tweets and determined that they
unambiguously insinuated that Mdlekeza was a sexual predator. The subsequent
stage entailed evaluating the damage. Considering the seriousness of the accusations
and the platform used for dissemination (social media), the court determined that the
tweets had a very harmful impact. The tweets were extensively disseminated,
intensifying the damage to Mdlekeza's reputation and professional standing.
The Two-Stage Inquiry in Defamation Cases
When finding defamation, the court conducts a two-stage investigation as outlined in
the case of Le Roux v Dey (2011 (3) SA 274 (CC)).
1. Determining the Meaning of the Publication: This entails deciphering the
meaning that an average person with normal intellect would get from the article,
including any inferences that may be made from it.
2. Determining Defamatory Nature: This entails evaluating whether the comment
diminishes the plaintiff's reputation in the perception of the community.
The court effectively utilized a two-stage inquiry in the case of Mdlekeza v Gallie. The
Twitter remarks made by the responder were analysed to determine their literal
interpretation and the inferences that a rational individual would get from them. The
Assignment 1
Semester 2 – 2024
The primary objective of defamation legislation in South Africa is to safeguard persons'
reputations from unwarranted damage. The law offers a means for individuals to seek
compensation when their reputation, honour, or standing is deliberately damaged by
a defamatory statement. This safeguard is not just for the purpose of the individual,
but also for the social concern of upholding individual dignity and personal integrity.
The Mdlekeza v Gallie 2021 (4) 531 (WCC) case offers a comprehensive analysis of
defamation principles and the corresponding claim for damages under the South
African legal framework.
Elements of defamation
In South African law, defamation is often described as the deliberate and unlawful act
of publishing a remark that harms the reputation of the plaintiff. In order for a comment
to be classified as defamatory, it must diminish the plaintiff's reputation in the eyes of
morally upright individuals in society. The components of defamation encompass:
1. Wrongfulness: The publication must be deemed defamatory, indicating that it
unjustly damages the plaintiff's reputation.
, 2. Intentionality: The defendant must have possessed the deliberate intention to
harm the reputation of the plaintiff, or alternatively, should have been aware that
their acts would most likely lead to the act of damaging the plaintiff's reputation.
3. Publication: The defamatory comment must be conveyed to a third party, not the
person who is suing.
4. Defamatory Nature: The comment must diminish the plaintiff's reputation in the
perception of others.
In Casu
In this instance, the court initially analysed the tweets and determined that they
unambiguously insinuated that Mdlekeza was a sexual predator. The subsequent
stage entailed evaluating the damage. Considering the seriousness of the accusations
and the platform used for dissemination (social media), the court determined that the
tweets had a very harmful impact. The tweets were extensively disseminated,
intensifying the damage to Mdlekeza's reputation and professional standing.
The Two-Stage Inquiry in Defamation Cases
When finding defamation, the court conducts a two-stage investigation as outlined in
the case of Le Roux v Dey (2011 (3) SA 274 (CC)).
1. Determining the Meaning of the Publication: This entails deciphering the
meaning that an average person with normal intellect would get from the article,
including any inferences that may be made from it.
2. Determining Defamatory Nature: This entails evaluating whether the comment
diminishes the plaintiff's reputation in the perception of the community.
The court effectively utilized a two-stage inquiry in the case of Mdlekeza v Gallie. The
Twitter remarks made by the responder were analysed to determine their literal
interpretation and the inferences that a rational individual would get from them. The
