Introduction
In South Africa, the law of delict regulates Defamation based on the actio iniuriarim. Actio iniuriarim is the action that one will institute if one’s personality right has been infringed. Defamation occurs when a statement has a negative impact on one’s reputation to such an extent that it influences the community’s point of view regarding one’s reputation as well.
To succeed with a defamation claim, one will need to satisfy the wrongful and intentional publication of a defamatory statement concerning another. Thus, the onus rests on the person claiming Defamation to prove the five elements.
Three primary defences exist in the case of a defamatory statement: the statement must be accurate and in the public interest. Secondly, the statement amounts to fair comment or freedom of expression, and thirdly, the statement is made under underprivileged circumstances.[1]
Can a company sue for Defamation that took place on a social media platform?
A company can sue a person for Defamation, whether it’s a natural or juristic person. A company is a juristic person; thus, it can hold rights and incur duties. As such, it has the required legal capacity to institute legal proceedings.
When can a company sue for Defamation that took place on a social media platform?
There is a misconception that only false information can be said to be defamatory statements. Hence, it can also be a factual statement. If there is no justification for the defamatory statements made or if it was not in the best interest of the public. The person who made the statement can be held accountable.
What can a company claim for in a defamatory case?
The quickest way to remove defamatory content from the internet is to request that the respondent remove it, hence starting by identifying the wrongdoer. Should the respondent refuse, one can also proceed with a court interdict to request that the court make an order that the defamatory publication be removed.
The courts do not interdict future Defamation in broad terms. It is not possible to interdict a respondent in broad and general terms from defaming an applicant in the future. Instead, a court may interdict specific acts of Defamation; for example, it may interdict the respondent from repeating an allegation that the applicant stole money from his employer.
As a last resort, you can claim for patrimonial loss, such as loss of income. Still, then, one should be able to present evidence that as a result of the defamatory statement that was made public, one suffered a loss in income.
Conclusion
Therefore, one should be wrong with the person who posted the defamatory material to rectify the issue in question. Hence, we request that the person remove the defamatory statement. As such, should the person avoid one’s request to remove the defamatory statement after the dispute has been rectified, one can then opt to apply for an interdict.
For further assistance, consult an attorney at SchoemanLaw is recommended.
[1] Lyer D “An Analytical Look Into the Concept of Online Defamation in South Africa” Vol 32 NO 2 2018 p126.
Recent Comments