Written by Roy Bregman, admitted attorney with over 51 years’ experience in defamation and reputation law.
Last updated: June 2026
Key Takeaways
Defamation is one of the most misunderstood areas of South African law. Every week, people are unfairly attacked online, in WhatsApp groups, on Facebook, in letters, and even in conversation. Their reputations suffer, their businesses lose clients, and their families are hurt. Yet many victims either do nothing because they do not know their rights, or they rush into expensive litigation only to find that the courts award very little in return.
This article tells you exactly what defamation is, when you have a case worth pursuing, what the courts can do for you, and, critically, when litigation is not worth the cost and stress. We draw on the most recent South African case law, including a landmark 2025 Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, so you can make an informed decision.
Defamation is the wrongful and intentional publication of a statement that damages another person’s reputation. South African law treats reputation as a fundamental value, closely linked to a person’s constitutional rights to dignity and privacy under sections 10 and 14 of the Constitution.
The word ‘publication’ does not require a newspaper or a website. Saying something defamatory to just one other person can be enough. A post in a WhatsApp group of three hundred people is obviously publication. So is a Facebook post seen by thousands of followers.
The statement does not have to be in plain words. Courts look at implied meaning as well. If a reasonable person reading or hearing the statement would understand it to mean something harmful about you, it can still be defamatory even if the words seem innocent on their face.
Yes. The Judicial Matters Amendment Act 15 of 2023, signed by President Ramaphosa on 3 April 2024, abolished the common law crime of defamation. You can no longer lay a criminal charge simply because someone made a defamatory statement about you. Defamation is now dealt with exclusively as a civil matter, meaning you sue for damages or other relief in a civil court. The separate crime of crimen iniuria, which covers serious insults to dignity, still exists.
To succeed in a defamation claim you must prove three elements. Once you prove all three, the law presumes that the publication was both wrongful and intentional. The person who made the statement then carries the burden of raising a valid defence to escape liability.
| Element | What It Means in Plain English | Common Examples |
| 1. Publication | The statement was communicated to at least one person other than you. | WhatsApp group message, Facebook post, email to a third party, spoken words at a meeting. |
| 2. Reference to you | A reasonable person would understand the statement to be about you, even without your name. | Using your photo, your job title, or a description that clearly identifies you. |
| 3. Defamatory in nature | The statement would lower your reputation in the eyes of a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence. | Falsely accusing you of theft, fraud, sexual misconduct, racism, or professional incompetence. |
Even if you prove all three elements, the person who made the statement can escape liability by proving one of the following defences. Understanding these defences will help you assess how strong your own case really is.
| Defence | What It Means | Likely to Succeed? |
| Truth and public benefit | The statement is true and it was in the public interest to publish it. | Often succeeds if the facts are well documented. |
| Fair comment | An honest opinion on a matter of public interest, published without malice. | Succeeds if the underlying facts are true and the opinion is genuine. |
| Privilege | Statements in court, Parliament, or in legal documents are protected. | Strong in formal legal or parliamentary settings. |
| Reasonable publication | The publisher took reasonable care to verify the facts and had a duty to publish. | More relevant to media defendants. |
| Consent | You agreed to the publication of the statement. | Rare in practice. |
Yes, but the scale and speed of online publication make it both more damaging and more complicated. A post on a public Facebook page can reach thousands of people within hours. A message in a WhatsApp group of three hundred members still counts as publication to all of them at once.
South African courts have confirmed repeatedly that the same legal principles apply online. There is no special ‘social media defence’. If anything, courts treat wide online publication as a factor that increases the damages you can claim, because the harm to your reputation is greater.
One practical complication is jurisdiction. A recent Supreme Court of Appeal judgment, discussed below, confirmed that courts look very carefully at where defamatory material was downloaded or read, not just where it was uploaded, when deciding whether they have the authority to deal with the matter.
The most important recent judgment in this field is Francois Jurie Nicolaas Harman v Pieter Hendrik Strydom (285/2024) [2025] ZASCA 108, decided by the Supreme Court of Appeal on 18 July 2025.
The facts: Harman was an estate agent and farm owner who owed the Land Bank money after his company was liquidated. Strydom was the attorney appointed to recover the debt. Harman, enraged by the legal proceedings against him, began posting on Facebook, accusing Strydom and Land Bank officials of unethical conduct. His followers then posted offensive and life-threatening comments about Strydom on Harman’s page. Strydom obtained a magistrate’s protection order barring further harassment. When the order was served, Harman defied it and posted again.
The outcome: The North West High Court interdicted Harman, ordered him to remove all material referring to Strydom from Facebook, and required him to provide a list of the persons who had posted defamatory comments under his posts. Harman appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, arguing that the orders were too wide and violated his constitutional right to privacy under section 14 and the Protection of Personal Information Act. The Supreme Court of Appeal dismissed his appeal in full, confirming that neither the Constitution nor POPIA protects a person who posts defamatory material about another on social media. Freedom of expression has limits, and the right to dignity and reputation is one of them.
Why it matters for you: This judgment is now the leading authority in South Africa on online defamation. It tells us that courts are willing to act quickly and decisively when a person uses social media to damage another’s reputation, and that privacy laws cannot be used as a shield by the person doing the harm.
In Hartland Lifestyle Estate (Pty) Ltd and Another v APC Marketing (Pty) Ltd and Another (6831/2023) [2023] ZAWCHC 150, decided by the Western Cape High Court on 13 June 2023, a dismissed roofing sub-contractor used WhatsApp and Facebook to claim that a property developer was cutting corners on safety.
The court found that the claims were false and motivated by the contractor’s desire to pressure the developer into paying disputed invoices, not by any genuine safety concern. It issued a final interdict prohibiting further statements, ordered the removal of all published posts, and directed the contractor to publish a retraction and apology on the same platforms where the defamatory material had appeared.
This case is useful for businesses. If a supplier, former employee, or unhappy client posts false allegations about your company online, you can approach the court urgently for an interdict and removal order. You do not have to wait for the damage to mount.
In Becker v Brits (14156/2019) [2022] ZAWCHC 44, the Western Cape High Court dealt with a case where a pastor wrote letters to the University of Stellenbosch and others accusing a successful farmer, his long-standing family parishioner, of alcohol abuse. The court found the letters to be clearly defamatory.
The judge noted that defamation law protects a person’s right to an unimpaired reputation and good name, and that reputation is the reflection the individual has in the eyes of society. The court condemned the pastor’s strategy of character assassination, noting that his conduct made it impossible for the plaintiff’s family to function again as a unit. The plaintiff was awarded R350,000 in damages, together with costs on the attorney-and-client scale, meaning the defendant had to pay a higher-than-usual contribution to the plaintiff’s legal costs because of his conduct.
The lesson here is that defamatory statements do not have to be posted on social media to be serious. Private letters, emails, or spoken words at a meeting can cause devastating reputational harm and attract substantial liability.
Although decided before our three-year window, Manyi v Dhlamini (36077/13) [2018] ZAGPPHC 563 remains essential reading for anyone tempted to claim millions in damages.
The plaintiff, a well-known public figure, claimed R5 million for WhatsApp messages that called him a ‘lazy animal’ and made other highly personal accusations. The court found for the plaintiff, accepting that the messages were defamatory. However, the judge awarded only R50,000 on the defamation claim and R5,000 on the threats claim. He expressly criticised the plaintiff for employing senior counsel when the matter did not warrant it, and for inflating the claim to bring it within the jurisdiction of the High Court rather than the Magistrates’ Court. The costs award was limited to the Magistrates’ Court scale, meaning the plaintiff likely spent far more on legal costs than he recovered.
This case is a clear warning: go into defamation litigation with realistic expectations and practical advice about cost versus reward.
South African courts have a range of tools available to them. The right remedy for your situation depends on the urgency, the nature of the publication, and whether you are primarily after money, removal of the material, or a public apology.
| Remedy | What It Does | When to Seek It |
| Interdict | A court order that stops the person from making further defamatory statements. Can be granted urgently on an ex parte basis, meaning without the other party present initially. | As soon as you become aware of ongoing or repeated publication. |
| Removal order | Compels the person to take down the offending post, email, or publication. | When defamatory material is still accessible online or in print. |
| Retraction and apology | An order that the person must publish a retraction and apology on the same platforms where the defamatory material appeared. | Where a public correction is important to restore your reputation. |
| Damages (solatium) | Compensation for the injury to your dignity and reputation. This is not a fine or a punishment; it is intended to console you for the harm suffered. Courts assess it on a case-by-case basis. | Always part of a defamation claim but rarely as large as clients expect. |
| Costs on attorney-and-client scale | An enhanced cost award that punishes the defendant for aggravated or malicious conduct, as in Becker v Brits. | Where the defendant’s conduct was particularly bad or persistent. |
Resist the urge to reply to the post or message in kind. A public response can escalate the situation, be used against you in court, and may even expose you to your own defamation claim if you say something you cannot justify.
Take full screenshots of the offending posts, messages, or publications. Note the date, time, and platform. If the material appears on a public webpage, use a tool that records the URL and the full text. Evidence that disappears before you can capture it can seriously weaken your case.
Time matters in defamation. If you need an urgent interdict to stop ongoing publication, you must act quickly. An experienced defamation attorney will assess the strength of your case, advise on the likely damages, and help you decide whether to send a demand letter first or go straight to court.
In most cases, the first move is to have your attorney write a formal demand letter. This letter will set out the defamatory statements, demand an immediate retraction and apology, and put the other party on notice that you will proceed to court if they do not comply. Many defamation matters are resolved at this stage, saving both parties the enormous cost and stress of litigation.
Before issuing summons or launching an application, your attorney will help you assess the realistic damages. Factors include how widely the statement was published, how serious the allegations are, your own reputation and profile, and whether you suffered actual financial loss as a result of the defamation. Remember the Manyi lesson: inflated claims attract adverse costs orders.
Litigation is expensive and emotionally draining. If the likely damages are modest and the defendant is unlikely to pay, it may not be worth going to court. A public retraction and apology, perhaps posted on the same WhatsApp group or Facebook page, can often do more to restore your reputation than a damages award that is difficult to enforce.
Smaller claims should be brought in the Magistrates’ Court to keep costs proportionate. Higher courts deal with more complex matters or where the amount claimed justifies the expense. Your attorney will guide you on the correct forum.
Defamation law in South Africa protects your right to a good name and a fair reputation. The courts have confirmed, most recently in the landmark Harman v Strydom judgment of 2025, that they will act swiftly and decisively to stop unlawful online conduct and to hold wrongdoers accountable.
At the same time, as the Manyi case showed, defamation litigation can be an expensive and frustrating exercise if you do not approach it with realistic expectations and practical legal advice. The best outcomes are usually achieved when a calm, strategic approach is taken from the outset, starting with evidence preservation and a well-crafted demand letter rather than an immediate rush to court.
Whether you are an individual whose personal reputation has been damaged by a vindictive post, or a business whose name has been dragged through the mud by a disgruntled contractor or former employee, the right legal team will help you protect what matters most.
No. The Judicial Matters Amendment Act 15 of 2023, signed into law in April 2024, abolished the common law crime of defamation. Defamation is now dealt with exclusively as a civil matter. If found liable, you may be ordered to pay damages and costs or to publish an apology, but you cannot be sentenced to imprisonment for defamation alone.
Yes, it can be. Publication requires only that the statement is communicated to at least one person other than the person being defamed. A WhatsApp message sent to a group of five people is published to all five of them. The smaller the audience, however, the lower the likely damages award, because the harm to your reputation is generally less widespread.
Yes. Companies and close corporations have a reputation that can be damaged by false and defamatory statements, just as individuals do. The same legal principles apply. If a competitor, supplier, or unhappy client publishes false allegations about your business online, you can claim damages and seek an interdict and removal order through the civil courts.
There is no fixed amount. South African courts assess damages on the facts of each case, considering how serious the allegations were, how widely they were published, your reputation and character, and the conduct of the defendant. In practice, awards in social media cases often range from R50,000 to R350,000. Unless you are a high-profile public figure or can show concrete financial loss, very large awards are uncommon.
Yes. South African courts regularly grant removal orders in defamation cases. They can also order the defendant to issue a retraction and apology on the same platform where the original post appeared. In urgent cases, a court can grant an ex parte interdict, meaning an order made before the other party even has the opportunity to appear, to stop further publication while the main matter is determined.
Bregmans Attorneys has been protecting the reputations of individuals and businesses in South Africa since 1974. With over 51 years of hands-on experience, our team provides clear, practical advice on whether your matter is worth pursuing and how to achieve the best possible outcome, at a cost that makes sense.
We will assess your matter honestly, help you preserve your evidence, and handle all correspondence and court proceedings on your behalf. In urgent cases, we can move to court quickly to stop further publication.
Call us now on +27 (0)11 646 0335, email roy@bmalaw.co.za, or visit bregmans.co.za for more information.