Embattled Ekhuruleni group chief financial officer Kagiso Lerutla has approached the Joburg High Court for urgent relief against social media personality Innocentia Morolong.
Lerutla is seeking an order forcing Morolong to remove alleged defamatory Instagram posts accusing him of paying bloggers to attack another person and harassing her.
In an urgent application, Lerutla asks the court to declare specific statements published on Morolong’s Instagram account unlawful and defamatory, provided the allegations are established to be false and wrongful on the evidence.
According to Lerutla’s founding affidavit, the disputed publications appeared on or around October 21, 2026, and included a collage featuring his photograph alongside images of two women.
He alleges that the accompanying caption referred to an online dispute involving him, his marital circumstances and his private relationships.
The application also refers to an Instagram story in which Morolong allegedly published a purported WhatsApp exchange and accused Lerutla of calling and harassing her, threatening her with lawyers and paying bloggers to attack another person.
Lerutla argues that the allegation that he secretly finances bloggers to damage another person’s reputation could undermine his integrity and professional standing.
“An allegation that I secretly finance bloggers to damage another person’s reputation is capable of suggesting dishonest, manipulative or improper conduct,” Lerutla states in his founding affidavit.
He says the posts had attracted substantial engagement, with a screenshot reflecting approximately 16,200 likes, 1,204 comments and 4,647 shares or sends at the time it was captured.
However, he acknowledges in the court papers that these figures reflect the numbers displayed at the time and are not an independently verified measure of unique readers.
Lerutla further claims that the publications have brought his private and family relationships into the public domain, raising concerns about the potential exposure of his spouse, children and other relatives to unwanted public scrutiny.
“The fact that my public role invites scrutiny does not extinguish the legitimate privacy interests of my family,” he states.
The founding affidavit states that his attorneys sent Morolong a cease-and-desist letter on October 21, demanding that the disputed material be removed and that undertakings be provided by 4pm that day.
Lerutla argues that the rapid spread of online content and the alleged prospect of further disclosures warrant urgent intervention rather than waiting for ordinary court proceedings.
He is asking the court to direct Morolong to remove the specifically identified publications within 12 hours of service of the order, insofar as they remain accessible, and to prohibit her from republishing the same unlawful allegations.
The proposed order would also restrain her from causing the same allegations to be published through people acting on her instructions.
However, Lerutla’s proposed relief expressly recognises that the order should not prevent lawful and accurate reporting of public court proceedings, fair comment or other speech protected by law.
Alternatively, he wants the court to grant interim relief pending a further hearing, with directions allowing both parties to exchange answering and replying affidavits.
He is also seeking an order requiring Morolong to preserve the original electronic versions and metadata of the disputed posts and relevant communications.
The court papers state that Lerutla does not seek to prevent criticism or truthful reporting about his public duties.
He acknowledges that freedom of expression and the public interest in scrutinising public officials must be weighed against his rights to dignity, reputation and privacy.
The court papers also state that he does not seek to have allegations concerning criminal proceedings declared false without first verifying the official court record.
Lerutla is asking for legal costs if the application is opposed, as well as further relief the court considers appropriate.
