Landmark SCA Ruling: Social Media Defamation Law in South Africa – Harman v Strydom Explained

 

Written by Roy Bregman, admitted attorney with over 51 years' experience in South African civil litigation and social media law.

Introduction: Understanding the Limits of Online Free Speech

South Africa’s Constitution strongly protects the right to freedom of expression, but this right is subject to essential legal limits, especially when one person's online statements threaten or harm another’s rights. In the digital age, courts have become increasingly active in policing the boundaries between free expression and unlawful conduct. The Supreme Court of Appeal (SCA) decision in Francois Jurie Nicolaas Harman v Pieter Hendrik Strydom [2025] ZASCA 108 is now a leading authority on what South Africans can and cannot say online, and what remedies are available to those targeted by harmful posts.

Legal Principles: Free Speech, Defamation & Online Harm

South Africa’s Approach to Social Media Law

• Section 16 of the Constitution gives everyone the right to freedom of expression, but excludes protections for hate speech, incitement to violence, and unfair discrimination.
• Defamation law prevents individuals from making statements that unjustifiably injure another’s reputation.
• POPIA (Protection of Personal Information Act) governs privacy and personal information but does not allow people to abuse privacy laws to shield themselves when spreading defamatory or life-threatening content.

The Role of Urgent Applications and Interim Relief

Courts can issue interim protection orders—sometimes without advance notice to the alleged wrongdoer (ex parte)—to prevent immediate harm. However, final orders can only be made after the affected party is given a chance to respond, fulfilling the constitutional audi alteram partem (fair hearing) rule.

Case Law: Facts, Proceedings, and Supreme Court of Appeal Decision

The Background: A Debt Dispute Turns to Online Vilification

Mr Harman, after defaulting on a multimillion-rand loan and suffering liquidation, became embroiled in legal proceedings led by attorney Mr Strydom. Upset at these actions, Harman posted accusations on Facebook, alleging unethical conduct by Strydom and Land Bank officials. The posts sparked a flood of abusive, life-threatening, and defamatory comments from Harman’s followers.

Escalation: Protection Order and Further Disregard

Strydom obtained a protection order barring Harman from further online harassment. When served, Harman escalated by posting photos of police and court officials on Facebook and denouncing Strydom, which in turn led to more hostile comments from his followers that threatened violence and included racist insults[1].

High Court Intervention: Swift and Protective Measures

Given the escalating online attacks, Strydom applied ex parte (urgently and without prior notice) for:

• Immediate removal of all defamatory and threatening social media content.
• Identification and disclosure of the people involved in posting threatening comments. The High Court granted interim relief (a rule nisi) and set return dates for Harman to respond, ultimately making these orders final after hearing full argument.

Issues on Appeal: Was the Process Fair and Lawful?

Harman challenged the orders, arguing:

• His constitutional right to be heard (section 34) was breached.
• The POPIA and his privacy rights prevented him from disclosing information on other Facebook users.

Supreme Court of Appeal’s Analysis and Ruling

Right to Be Heard: Was Audi Violated?

The SCA found that Harman’s right to be heard was fully respected:

• Interim relief via ex parte order is constitutionally permitted, especially if there is risk of evidence being destroyed or harm being suffered if notice is given in advance.
• Harman was given ample opportunity to respond (including the ability to file an answering affidavit and argue against final relief at a later date).
• Procedural avenues like appeals, reconsideration (Rule 6(12)(c)), and rescission (Rule 42) were available; Harman failed to properly use these remedies.

Privacy, POPIA, and Disclosure of Other Users

The SCA rejected Harman’s invocation of POPIA and privacy:

• There is no protection for identity information of individuals who themselves commit or aid in the commission of harmful online acts.
• Disclosing the identities of individuals involved in defamatory, threatening, or unlawful online activities is justified to allow victims to pursue legal remedies and protect their rights.

Real-World Limits on Freedom of Expression

It was emphatically held that freedom of expression ends where it infringes another’s right to safety, dignity, and reputation. Harman’s posts and the conduct they encouraged were not constitutionally protected and caused real harm to Strydom.

Judgment

The SCA dismissed the appeal with costs (including costs of two counsel), reasserting the courts’ willingness to order immediate removal of dangerous posts and revelation of offenders, and confirming judicial protection against online hate, harassment, and defamation.

Conclusion: The Significance of Harman v Strydom

The Harman v Strydom decision is now a landmark authority confirming that South African law takes online threats and defamation seriously. Every person using social media:

• Must respect the limits on freedom of expression—harmful, life-threatening, or reputationally damaging digital conduct can and will be met with swift legal action.
• Victims are empowered to seek urgent court protection, removal of content, and identification of those involved.
• The protection of privacy and personal information under POPIA does not extend to those enabling unlawful acts online.

 

What Are Your Rights If the Car You Bought Has Defects?

 

The Problem

You’ve bought a car from a dealer (not a private seller), and something goes wrong with it. Maybe:

• The paintwork is flawed
• The steering feels unsafe and the car swerves
• The brakes don’t work properly
• The car puts you, others, or property at risk

Even if no injury or damage has occurred, the vehicle may still fail to meet the required standards of quality and safety.

This is where the Consumer Protection Act (CPA) comes in.
 

·        Section 55(2): requires that goods must be suitable for their purpose; be of good quality, in working order, and free of defects; and be useable and durable.

·        Section 56(2): says that a consumer has six months from the date of delivery of the motor vehicle to return the goods to the supplier without cost or penalty, and the consumer can elect to have it repaired, replaced, or refunded.

·        Section 56(3): if a consumer requests a repair, or the six-month period has lapsed and the motor vehicle gets a repair, and the issue persists then a consumer (within three months from the date of repair) can request a refund or replacement of the motor vehicle.

·        These sections apply in addition to warranties on the motor vehicle.
 

Next Steps and Possible Sanctions – which we can assist you with

·        Contact the supplier and try to resolve it under the CPA.

·        Complain to MIOSA – the Motor Industry Ombudsman – at www.miosa.co.za

·        Contact the Provincial Consumer Affairs Offices, per province.

·        Approach the Gauteng Consumer Court.

·        Refer the matter to the National Consumer Commission – www.thencc.gov.za

·        If the claim is under R20,000, try the Small Claims Court

·        If all else fails, take legal action (you’ll need a lawyer for this) 

Need Help?

Let’s talk about your rights and what steps you can take.

📍 www.bregmans.co.za

☎️ 011 646 0335

✉️ info@bregmans.co.za

 

Naming and Shaming on Social Media: South African Defamation Law Explained

 

Learn how South African law treats defamation on social media, including key legal principles, real court cases, and practical advice for individuals and businesses.

Written by Roy Bregman, an admitted attorney with over 51 years’ experience in South African law, including defamation, social media law, and privacy.

Naming and Shaming on Social Media: What South African Law Says

Introduction: The Legal Principles of Defamation and Social Media

Social media has changed the way we communicate, giving everyone a platform to share opinions, experiences, and grievances instantly. But with this power comes responsibility. In South Africa, posting about someone or a business online, especially to “name and shame”, can have serious legal consequences. Defamation law applies to Facebook, X (formerly Twitter), Instagram, WhatsApp, and any other platform where you can publish information about others.

Defamation is when someone wrongfully and intentionally publishes content (written, spoken, or visual) that is seen by at least one person, other than the subject, that unfairly harms another’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable people or lowers a person’s standing in the community.

Yes, that includes status updates, comments, memes, and retweets. If you “like,” “share,” or “retweet” a defamatory post, or even tag someone in one, you could also be held liable. The law is clear: what you say online is treated the same as what you would publish in a newspaper or say in public.

The Role of Truth and Public Interest

Many people believe that telling the truth is always a defence. This is not correct. In South African law, the statement must be both true and in the public interest. If you post about someone’s private affairs, even if true, but it doesn’t serve the broader public good, you could still be found liable for defamation.

Hate Speech and Social Media

Hate speech is any expression that incites violence or discrimination against a protected group (race, gender, religion, etc.). Freedom of expression, protected by the Constitution, is not absolute. It does not cover defamation, hate speech, or incitement to violence, and such posts can lead to both civil and criminal liability.

Case Law: Real Examples from South African Courts

The Cawood Attorneys Case

A South African law firm, Cawood Attorneys, was falsely accused on Facebook of stealing COVID-19 funds and acting dishonestly. The businesswoman who posted these allegations was ordered by the Middelburg High Court to remove the posts and refrain from making further defamatory remarks. The court also held Facebook accountable, ordering it to uphold the law regarding defamatory remarks and hate speech. The businesswoman was ordered to pay the legal costs.

Isparta v Richter (2013)

In this case, the court awarded damages for defamatory comments made on Facebook. The defendant had tagged another person in the defamatory post. The court found that not only the author but also those tagged or associated with the post could be held liable. This case set a precedent that sharing, liking, or tagging defamatory content can make you legally responsible.

Heroldt v Wills (2013)

Heroldt sought an interdict against Wills for posting a defamatory Facebook message accusing him of being an unfit parent. The court found the post defamatory, as it would lower Heroldt’s reputation in the eyes of reasonable people. The court ordered Wills to remove the post and pay legal costs.

Dutch Reformed Church v Sooknunan

The creator of a Facebook page was held responsible for defamatory messages posted by others on that page.

Casilli v Facebook SA

The court addressed whether Facebook SA or Facebook Inc. was responsible for removing defamatory content. Eventually, Facebook Inc. agreed to remove the content after a valid court order was obtained.

Practical Guidance: How to Avoid Legal Trouble on Social Media

Think Before You Post

• Always check your facts before posting anything negative about someone or a business.
• Ask yourself: Is this true? Can I prove it? Is it in the public interest, or just interesting to the public?
• Avoid posting anything that could be seen as incitement, hate speech, or discrimination.

What To Do If You’re Defamed

• Request the person to remove the post.
• If they refuse, you can apply to court for an order to have the post removed and to prevent further defamatory posts.
• You can also claim damages for harm to your reputation.

Employer Policies and Dismissal

• Many employers have social media policies. Employees have been dismissed for derogatory posts about their company, colleagues, or management.
• Even private comments or sharing internal business matters can result in disciplinary action.

Conclusion: The Power and Peril of Social Media

Social media is a powerful way to share information and call out wrongdoing, but it can also be legally risky. Naming and shaming someone online might feel like justice, yet it can easily amount to defamation or hate speech, which the law treats as seriously as anything published in a newspaper. South African law protects every person’s dignity and reputation, and even if what you say is true, it must also serve the public interest to be a valid defence. You could be held legally responsible not just for posting, but also for sharing, commenting on, or even liking harmful content. While platforms can be ordered to remove defamatory posts, the main responsibility rests with you, so think carefully before you hit "post."

When in doubt, seek legal advice before posting.

Frequently Asked Questions (FAQ)

Q: Can I get sued for naming and shaming someone on Facebook?
A: Yes. If your post harms someone’s reputation and is not both true and in the public interest, you can be sued for defamation.

Q: Is it defamation if what I say is true?
A: Not always. The statement must also be in the public interest, not just interesting to the public.

Q: What should I do if I’m defamed online?
A: Ask the person to remove the post. If they refuse, seek legal advice and consider applying to court for an order to remove the content and prevent further posts.

Q: Can I be held liable for sharing or liking a defamatory post?
A: Yes. Sharing, liking, or tagging someone in a defamatory post can make you legally responsible.

Q: Are there defences to defamation?
A: Yes. Truth and public interest, fair comment, and privilege are possible defences, but they have strict requirements.

Need advice?
Let’s chat about your options.
👉 www.bregmans.co.za
☎️ 011 646 8411 | ✉️ info@bregmans.co.za

 

 

 Author: Roy Bregman – Admitted Attorney (Est. 1974) | Specialist in Family Law

 

What Is Vexatious Litigation in Divorce?

Over the years in practice, I’ve come across divorce disputes that go far beyond a genuine need for justice. Some individuals misuse the courts as a tool to harass, delay, or exhaust their spouse financially. This is known as vexatious litigation, a pattern of bringing repeated, baseless legal claims, not for justice but for revenge or control.

In South Africa, the Vexatious Proceedings Act 3 of 1956 empowers courts to intervene when litigation is being abused in this way. If you or a client are caught up in such a battle, it’s important to know the legal remedies available.

 

Legal Protection Under the Vexatious Proceedings Act

The Act aims to strike a delicate balance between two competing principles:
- The right of access to justice, and
- The need to prevent abuse of court processes.

Under Section 2(1)(b) of the Act, a High Court may declare a person a vexatious litigant, effectively blocking them from launching any new legal proceedings without first obtaining the court’s permission.

To make such a declaration, the court looks for:
- A clear pattern of persistent and meritless litigation
- Evidence that the litigation was intended to harass or financially drain the other party
- An overall abuse of the court’s time and process

 

Key Case Law on Vexatious Conduct in Divorce

South African courts have recently handed down strong decisions on this topic, especially in the family law arena:

• NDC v GC [2022] – Multiple meritless applications led to the respondent being declared a vexatious litigant.
• Sawyer v Sam and Another (2022) – The court tackled repetitive, baseless maintenance claims.
• N.K and Another v B.B (2023) – Repeated false accusations and disregard for custody orders resulted in a litigation ban.
• TD v LD and Others (2024) – A recent case reflecting the emotional toll and court protection against abuse.

These cases reflect the judiciary’s firm stance: Courts will not allow themselves to be used to perpetuate conflict.

 

Practical Advice for Clients and Legal Practitioners

If you’re a victim of vexatious litigation or representing someone who is, it’s essential to act swiftly.

What You Can Do:
- Apply to the High Court to have the opposing party declared a vexatious litigant
- Provide proof of repeated, unmeritorious litigation
- Highlight the emotional or financial harm caused

What Lawyers Should Know:
- Warn clients against bringing hopeless or malicious claims
- Judges are increasingly granting protective orders
- Ethical litigation protects both clients and the profession

 

FAQs: Quick Answers for the Public

Q: What is vexatious litigation in South African divorce law?
A: It’s when someone repeatedly goes to court without good reason, often just to harass their ex-spouse.

Q: Can the court stop this kind of behaviour?
A: Yes. A court can declare the person a vexatious litigant, which stops them from launching new cases without special permission.

Q: What should I do if I’m being harassed through the courts?
A: Speak to your lawyer about applying for a vexatious litigant order. This can offer real protection and peace of mind.

 

Final Thoughts

With more than 50 years in family law, I’ve seen how easily a legal process can be turned into a weapon in divorce disputes. Fortunately, South African law provides clear, practical remedies to protect individuals and uphold the integrity of our courts.

If you suspect you’re facing vexatious litigation or want to avoid stepping over the line, get sound legal advice early. Courts are no longer passive bystanders in these matters, and neither should you be.

 

Need help with a divorce or legal harassment?
Contact us on 011 646-0335 or sasha@bmalaw.co.za or visit www.bregmans.co.za

Cybercrime in EFT Payments: Who Bears the Risk When Fraud Strikes?

 

Written by Roy Bregman, an admitted attorney with over 51 years’ experience in commercial litigation and contract law. Learn more about Roy’s expertise.

The recent Supreme Court of Appeal ruling in Intengo Imoto v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers confirms that the risk of EFT fraud rests with the payer. Businesses must verify banking details before making payment, as failure to do so does not discharge the debt, even if fraud was involved. This case highlights the legal imperative for due diligence in electronic transactions.

Introduction

Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) fraud is an increasing risk in commercial transactions. The Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa’s recent judgment in Intengo Imoto v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers (Case 474/2024) clarifies a critical legal principle: debtors bear the responsibility to verify banking details before payment. This ruling establishes that payment into a fraudulent account—even due to intercepted emails—does not discharge the debtor’s obligation.

Legal Principles: Payment Obligations in EFT Transactions

South African contract law imposes strict duties on debtors regarding payment:

• Place of payment: Funds must reach the creditor’s designated account. As established in Bush v Kruger, EFT payment is only complete when received in the payee’s account.
• Risk allocation: The debtor assumes responsibility for ensuring correct payment. The court cited Mannesman Demag v Romatex, affirming that “the risk is the debtor’s since it is the debtor’s duty to seek out his creditor.”
• Onus of proof: The payer must prove valid payment. Failure to do so leaves the original debt enforceable.

This framework places the burden squarely on purchasers to mitigate cybercrime risks through due diligence.

Case Analysis: Intengo Imoto v Zoutpansberg Motor Wholesalers

Background Facts

• Parties:
• Appellant: Intengo Imoto (vehicle seller)
• Respondent: Hyundai Louis Trichardt (purchaser)
• Agreement: Hyundai bought two vehicles (R290,000) via EFT, with banking details provided in emailed invoices.
• Fraud: Hyundai paid into fraudulent accounts instead of Intengo’s actual account due to intercepted emails.
• Outcome: Intengo never received payment and sued for the purchase price.

Lower Court Decisions

• Regional Court: Ruled for Intengo, ordering Hyundai to pay R290,000 plus interest. The court emphasized Hyundai’s failure to verify account details.
• High Court: Overturned the ruling, claiming Intengo failed to prove contractual breach.

Supreme Court of Appeal’s Key Findings

1. Onus of proof: Hyundai bore the burden to prove valid payment but failed.
2. Verification duty: Businesses must confirm banking details pre-payment. The court cited Mosselbaai Boere Dienste, stating, “The golden thread... places an obligation on the purchaser to ensure that the bank account details... are correct.”
3. Risk allocation: Hyundai’s argument that Intengo “assumed risk” via email communication was rejected. The court affirmed that cybercrime liability rests with the payer.

Final Ruling: Hyundai’s appeal was dismissed, reinstating the regional court’s judgment.

FAQs: EFT Payment Risks After Intengo v Hyundai

Q: What steps prevent EFT fraud?

A: Always verify account details via phone call; avoid relying solely on emailed invoices.

Q: Who is liable if payment goes to a fraudulent account?

A: The purchaser remains liable unless the seller authorized the incorrect account.

Q: How does this ruling affect standard business practices?

A: Businesses must implement payment verification protocols to avoid liability.

Conclusion

The Intengo judgment crystallizes a critical precedent: Due diligence in payment verification is non-negotiable. Businesses ignoring this duty risk significant financial exposure. As cybercrime evolves, this ruling underscores that courts will enforce purchaser accountability, rejecting “email interception” as a defence for non-payment. Proactive measures are now a legal imperative.