A Limpopo ward councillor turned to the Limpopo High Court, sitting in Polokwane, to obtain an interdict against the chairman of a local school governing body, after he claimed that the chairman is badmouthing him on social media, as well as in the media, which suggested that he is corrupt.
The accusations were sparked by a R32-million school renovation project which was stopped even before it began, following allegations that the councillor demanded kickbacks from the contractor.
Selege Diketane turned to court as he said the allegations made against him by the chairman of the school board, Debis Makgwale, were harmful to his good name and reputation.
Diketane asked for an urgent order, restraining and interdicting Makgwale (the respondent) from posting or supplying any information pertaining to him (the applicant) on Facebook, group chats, conducting radio and newspaper interviews, and any other social media.
He also asked for an order stopping the respondent from making false defamatory statements about him and for the respondent to remove the existing postings.
In 2008, Nkgonyeletse Secondary School sustained structural damage requiring repairs from the Department of Education. The respondent attended a meeting held in September this year where the Department of Education, with the Department of Public Works, indicated that a budget of R32 800 000,00 was available for the restoration of the school.
A steering committee was appointed; however, a dispute arose concerning a visit to the Tribal Office. The respondent referred the issue to the school governing body federation, where a decision was taken to halt the plans in respect of the building project.
This resulted in interviews on various social media platforms as well as newspaper articles. One of the articles was headlined “SGB halts school project amidst bribery allegation. Councillor accused of soliciting bribes.”
The court was told by the applicant that the respondent attended various meetings and interviews, where he vocalised his opinion concerning his impression of the conduct of the applicant. He also indicated that the applicant sought to threaten them with a summons, demanding an apology for character assassination.
Based on this, the applicant served the respondent a letter of demand, in which the respondent was informed that the posts contained numerous unverified, spurious, scandalous, and defamatory statements and remarks against him (the applicant).
The applicant said the comments made by the respondent were intended to mean, or at the very least conveyed the innuendo, that he (the applicant) is dishonest and untrustworthy, the worst kind of a leader, self-serving, and an extortionist.
The applicant demanded that the respondent publicly withdraw the social media posts and correspondences and that he tender an apology.
According to the applicant, the respondent, however, persisted in publicly expressing his views concerning the applicant. The latter said if the court did not urgently intervene, the respondent would most likely proceed to post more defamatory statements.
The respondent, in turn, argued that the applicant, as ward councillor, held a political position and as such his conduct was in the public interest. The posts, interviews, and publications were to the benefit of the public, he said.
The court said when weighing up the submissions made concerning the prejudice to be suffered, it was noteworthy that the balance of convenience favours the applicant. The applicant highlighted that he does not have an adequate alternative remedy due to the irreparable harm that is envisioned if this application was not granted.
“The applicant has made out a case for approaching the court on an urgent basis for protection and relief. However, the court takes cognisance of the fact that the respondent and applicant are both involved in this project for the restoration of the school,” the court said.
It only granted certain of the prayers asked for by the applicant. This included that the respondent is interdicted and prohibited from making false and defamatory statements about the applicant with specific reference to the manner in which the applicant conducts himself in his professional and/or personal life.