Legal Talk

Author: Fawzia Khan
Date: 2014-10-10

I have written articles on the dangers of posting comments on Facebook or any other social media plan, which could be considered as defamatory. Whether or not it's your Facebook wall does not give you the right to vent or invite comments from others "friends" on any topic, which attack the integrity of, or harms a person's reputation. On 19 September the Pietermaritzburg High Court granted a final interdict to a man "M" who approached the court to order his ex- lover "B" to refrain from posting any defamatory statements about him on her Facebook page.

The court had earlier granted an interim interdict and the court had to decide whether or not to make the interim interdict a final order. The ex lover opposed the interdict application. The facts around the case were briefly as follows. "M" and "B" were previously in a relationship and were the parents of a five-year-old girl. They never married and the relationship subsequently ended. They reached an agreement regarding the contact and access that "M" could exercise over the minor child. On one particular weekend when M had overnight access to his daughter, he took his daughter to visit a friend in whose house the child and the man ended up staying the night. An adult female, pre-primary schoolteacher, who babysat the child on previous occasions, shared a bed with the child.

There was no harm caused to the child and she was returned to her mother "B" the next day. However the mother of the child "B" then posted the following on her Facebook page. 'DEBATE: your ex has your daughter (5) for the weekend and is sleeping at a mates house. They all (about six adults) go jolling and your ex's drunk, 50 yr old girl "friend" ends up sleeping with your daughter cause he doesn't want his girl "friend" sleeping in a single bed she can share the double bed with his/your daughter! How would you feel?'

At the time of the posting "B" had 592 "Facebook friends". Many of "B's 'friends' strongly criticized M's behaviour. Thereafter she posted more comments to the "debate". The opening message on B's Facebook Wall read:

'This is my FB page which I can get opinions on matters close to my heart, if you don't like it then go read someone else's and defriend me!' The man looked to the court for relief saying that "B" defamed him. One of the main points he used was the following posting by his ex.'I have Every right to know who ends up looking after / sleeping with my daughter Looking after a child during school hours or afternoon is different to a night time, when alcohol and drugs are involved!!'

The use of the words "drugs" was the catalyst which caused " M" to seek the intervention of the court. He argued that his reputation had been harmed and business reputation and character damaged. The woman responded by saying that as she had taken down the postings, there was no need for the interdict nor was there any urgency. The Court however was not convinced and confirmed the sufficient grounds existed for the interdict to remain in place and ordered the ex to also pay the costs.

Know your rights! Email fawzia@thelawdesk.co.za or call 031-5025670 for legal assistance at competitive rates. The Law Desk of Fawzia Khan & Associates. We Know! We Care! We Deliver!

Springclean

Enlarge View Link

Nissan T5ekton

Enlarge View Link