MATANGI v KUMBULA & ORS 1992 (2) ZLR 241 (H)

Flynote

Delict — defamation — interdict to stop continued publication of defamatory information — when court will grant

Headnote

The applicant sought an order interdicting the respondents from publishing defamatory information about him and from entering his residential property without his express consent and threatening, abusing, insulting and assaulting him.

The applicant alleged that the respondents had published defamatory information about him to others. Despite the fact that the applicant had not attached to his founding affidavit any supporting affidavit from a person to whom the alleged defamatory statements had been published or copies of written material allegedly circulated by the respondents, the court found that, on the basis of the facts which were common cause or were not denied by the respondents, the applicant had established a sufficient basis for his application.

The court granted the interdict. It found that the applicant had a reasonable apprehension that his rights would be infringed and there was no other remedy reasonably available to the applicant to protect his rights. The remedy of damages was not an adequate alternative remedy. He did not have to wait for the damage to be done and then sue for compensation. Loss of reputation or dignitas or invasion of privacy cannot always be adequately compensated by the payment of damages.