This blog is co-authored by Yuveshen Naidoo, candidate attorney.
In August 2025, the High Court held that an investigative report prepared for a municipality was protected by qualified privilege. The court dismissed a defamation claim because the plaintiff could not prove malice, unlawful publication, or any improper motive on the part of the attorneys who authored the report.
The matter arose when the plaintiff, who was employed as a municipal technical director, sued the attorneys for R2 million in damages, claiming the report contained defamatory statements about his competence, professional conduct, and managerial decisions. He also sought damages, a formal retraction, and an apology. The municipality had instructed the attorneys to investigate a serious sewage-spillage crisis, and their report highlighted systemic failures within the management team, including issues involving the plaintiff’s department. The court found that the attorneys had a legal, moral, and social duty to report their findings to the municipal council, and the council had a corresponding legitimate interest in receiving such a report. Lastly, the material was confidential in nature, originated for a specific purpose, and was intended solely for the council’s attention. Accordingly, the report was delivered on a privileged occasion. The report was shared with around 28 council members during a formal meeting, and the plaintiff could not prove that it was made public to anyone outside of that context.
The court ruled that qualified privilege is not absolute. The plaintiff had the opportunity to rebut it by proving that the attorneys acted with malice or an improper motive. The court found no evidence of such intent. Instead, it held that the attorneys had acted within the scope of their instructions and in good faith. The court also noted that the plaintiff had omitted important contextual facts when presenting his case, which could distort the true purpose and scope of the report.
The plaintiff failed to prove that the report was published outside of a privileged occasion, or that the attorneys acted with intent or malice to defame him. As a result, the defendants were not liable to pay any damages to the plaintiff, and the claim was dismissed. The judgment affirms that where a report is produced under lawful instruction and for a legitimate institutional purpose and is kept within the audience entitled to receive it, it is unlikely to give rise to defamation liability unless actual malice can be proved.
This case is significant for those involved in governance, regulatory compliance, and professional advisory work. It reinforces the protection that applies to internal investigative processes and the importance of proper documentation, adherence to instructions, and maintaining appropriate confidentiality. It is evident that there is a high bar for overturning a defence of qualified privilege and the decision provides useful guidance for organisations commissioning or preparing investigative reports in potentially contentious matters.
The full judgment is available here: Manqele v Baloyi Masango Inc Attorneys and Others (896/2023) [2025] ZAMPMBHC 75 (12 August 2025)