In defence of media freedom, the Western Cape High Court has struck out a defamation lawsuit brought by the Kannaland Local Municipality and its municipal manager against the media.
The ruling, delivered by Acting Judge Z.L. Mapoma last month, is being hailed as a powerful rebuke to organs of state that try to use taxpayer money to silence journalists reporting on alleged corruption and misconduct.
According to the Oudtshoorn Courant, The court ordered the municipality’s entire particulars of claim to be struck out and ordered it to pay legal costs on Scale B.
The case stemmed from a media article detailing serious allegations of sexual harassment within the Kannaland Municipality.
The report stated that an employee had come forward implicating a “senior official” at the institution.
In response, the municipality and its municipal manager, Dillo Sereo, sued a local media house and its editor for defamation.
The media house challenged the lawsuit through an exception, arguing that the claim was legally defective and disclosed no valid cause of action.
Judge Mapoma agreed, in a judgment that goes to the heart of South Africa’s constitutional democracy.
“The reasoning is rooted in the principle that the state exists to serve the public and must be subject to open criticism and scrutiny; it cannot use taxpayer-funded litigation to silence the press for reporting on its alleged failures,” the judgment found.
The court reportedly drew a sharp line between the state and the individual. While a public official can sue for defamation in his personal capacity, Sereo had sued specifically in his official capacity as municipal manager.
“By suing as a representative of the state entity, he effectively adopted the state’s lack of standing,” Judge Mapoma ruled.
The judgment did not stop there. The court found the municipality’s claim technically flawed on several other grounds.
It ruled that the plaintiffs had failed to show how a “reasonable reader” would identify the unnamed “senior official” referred to in the article, making the claim “vague and embarrassing.”
It also found that while the municipality accused the media of breaching the Press Code of Ethics, it had made only a “bald” allegation that the reporting was untruthful without pleading what the “true state of affairs” was.
Finally, the municipality failed to quantify its damages as required by Rule 18(10) of the Uniform Rules of Court, leaving the defendants unable to assess the financial risk of the claim.
In upholding the exception, Judge Mapoma gave the plaintiffs 15 days to amend their papers, but legal experts say the core defect – that an organ of state cannot sue for defamation – cannot be fixed by amendment.
The ruling is a major victory for community media, which often faces intimidation from powerful local councils when exposing alleged wrongdoing.
Media freedom organisations have long warned that Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPP) by municipalities drain small newsrooms and have a chilling effect on reporting.
Kannaland Local Municipality, based in Ladismith in the Little Karoo, has for years been ranked among South Africa’s most dysfunctional municipalities.
Plagued by financial mismanagement, service delivery failures and political infighting, it has repeatedly made headlines for audit disclaimers and governance crises.
In a separate dispute, the municipality is also facing legal action from Gauteng businessman Mfusi Ngayi, part-owner of Imbriolo Construction (Pty) Ltd.
Imbriolo was awarded a contract on 15 May 2024 for the refurbishment of the Ladismith Wastewater Treatment Works.
The contract soured over Interim Payment Certificate 10 (IPC 10). Imbriolo accuses the Employer’s Agent, Black Dynasty, of failing to certify IPC 10 on time, constituting a breach. The municipality terminated the contract on 9 June 2025, claiming Imbriolo abandoned site. Imbriolo disputes this, saying it suspended work due to non-payment and held a lien.
Sereo had not responded to Africa Daily by the time of publication.
