ZELDA VENTER
A JUDGE has emphasised the importance of media freedom and the public’s right to know about court outcomes.
This was after an advocate, whose name was struck from the roll of advocates, wanted the court to declare that the media house and the journalist who reported on his matter were guilty of defamation.
He reasoned that because he was appealing the order against him striking him from the roll of advocates, it suspended the original order.
Thus, he said, the media was not allowed to report on the matter.
But Deputy Judge President Takalani Tatshibvumo, sitting in the Limpopo High Court, commented that the right of the public to hear of the court outcomes when they unfold cannot be limited or delayed until the appeal outcome, all because the operation of the order is suspended.
The matter first turned in court after News24 website published an article about advocate Kevin Maluleke, stating that he was a dishonest lawyer who had been struck off the roll of advocates.
Maluleke successfully turned to court where he obtained an order that the article was deemed false and defamatory, as he was appealing the order that struck him from the roll.
Although Maluleke was present in court when the matter to strike him from the roll was heard, he was later temporarily excused by the court to attend to his “domestic chores”.
He however did not return, and the hearing proceeded in his absence. The court subsequently ordered the removal of his name from the roll of advocates.
Upon learning of the order handed down, he lodged papers for the application for leave to appeal the order.
The website meanwhile carried an article under the headline “Dishonest Limpopo Lawyer struck from the roll of advocates, but dismisses ruling as a joke”.
When they refused to remove the article, Maluleke turned to court where it was held and claimed that the article is unlawful and defamatory and that it had to be removed.
The judge who granted that order reasoned that as that there was an application for leave to appeal, it did not only suspend the operation of the order made, but the order should be seen as having not ever been made.
But on appeal from the publishing company, Judge Ratshibvumo said that reasoning is totally wrong and illogical.
“If this approach by that court is the correct interpretation of the provision pertaining to suspension of court orders, it would entail that the publication of any court outcome (whether by media or not) would have to be barred for as long as there is an application for leave to appeal…”
The judge added that this would mean judgments and orders can only be reported on once the appeal has been finalised—often years later.
“This approach defeats logic, especially for the media houses that report on current affairs when the news breaks. The right of the public to hear of the court outcomes when they unfold cannot be limited or delayed until the appeal outcome, all because the operation of the order is suspended,” the judge said.
He subsequently upheld the appeal.