Authored by Atish Dullabh and Art Wynberg.
In September 2026, the high court held that a municipal chief financial officer (CFO) who accused a colleague on WhatsApp of having “normalised corruption” had defamed the colleague and failed to prove the substantial truth of the allegation. The court awarded R100 000 in general damages together with an order for retraction and apology.
The CFO and the supply chain manager were employed at the same local municipality. The CFO published statements on a WhatsApp group with approximately ten colleagues accusing the manager of having “normalised corruption”, describing him as a “renowned bully”, and stating that he did not “fight with looters”.
The court held that the statements were defamatory because a reasonable reader would understand them as implying that the manager was personally corrupt. The CFO raised the defence of truth and public benefit in respect of the corruption allegation, and fair comment in respect of the bullying and looting allegations.
The CFO relied on evidence that the manager was responsible for irregular municipal expenditure and had told him he had a political mandate to direct contracts to favoured service providers.
The court held that this evidence did not establish the substantial truth of the corruption allegation. Irregular expenditure demonstrated non-compliance with procurement requirements but did not, without more, establish dishonesty or corrupt intent. Similarly, even accepting that the political mandate conversation had occurred, there was no evidence linking the manager to any identified corrupt transaction.
The court found no factual basis sustaining the defence of fair comment in respect of the “renowned bully” and “looter” allegations.
In assessing damages, the court noted the sting of an accusation of corruption directed at a public procurement official, and that the accusation was made by the manager’s superior. The publication was limited in numerical extent but significant in its professional context.
This judgment confirms that defamatory statements sent on WhatsApp can sustain a defamation claim for damages. Allegations of corruption are generally defamatory. A defendant who makes such allegations bears the onus of proving the defences of truth and public benefit or fair comment.
Mkhwane v Dyakala (A2025-025717) [2026] ZAGPJHC (17 September 2026)