A recent judgment reads like a cautionary tale: post unverified accusations online – particularly about a company – and you could face serious legal fallout.
On 6 February 2026, the High Court in Johannesburg granted a final interdict against a non-profit organisation and its directors after finding they had published defamatory statements about Barloworld (Pty) Ltd and targeted one of its customers with those claims.
The Court not only barred further publication but also ordered the respondents to issue a written retraction and to pay costs on the punitive attorney-and-client scale.
What sparked the dispute
The litigation traces back to the termination of a commercial relationship between Barloworld and another entity. Following that termination, allegations of racism and abuse were made against the company on social media by a third party.
Those allegations were investigated internally and later considered in Equality Court proceedings, where a magistrate decided the matter should not be referred to the Equality Court.
Despite this, Not In My Name International NPC and its directors later posted statements on X accusing Barloworld of racist and sexist conduct and sent a letter to one of its longstanding customers repeating the allegations and inviting scrutiny of its business relationship with the company.
An interim interdict was granted in November 2023 restraining further defamatory publication and prohibiting contact with the company’s customers about the dispute.
The February 2026 judgment dealt with whether that interim order should be made final.
Defamation law: the burden shifts quickly
In their analysis of the ruling, ENS dispute-resolution executives Aslam Moosajee and Shenaaz Munga emphasise how quickly legal risk can arise once defamatory publication is proven.
They explain: “Defamation consists of the wrongful and intentional publication of a defamatory statement concerning another. Once publication of a defamatory statement is established, wrongfulness and intention are presumed, and the onus shifts to the other party to rebut those elements by establishing a recognised defence.”
That principle was applied directly by the Court. Judge Leonie Windell confirmed that once publication is proved, the legal burden moves to the publisher.
The court also emphasised that the test is objective: it asks what meaning a reasonable reader would take from the words and whether that meaning harms reputation.
Why the defences failed
The respondents argued their statements were true, in the public interest, or protected as opinion or free expression. The Court rejected each defence.
Moosajee and Munga note that the turning point was evidentiary failure.
“The downfall of the defences was due to the NPC’s failure to place before the Court admissible evidence establishing the truth of their allegations of racism and sexism.”
The Court reached the same conclusion, holding that the respondents had not provided proof capable of establishing truth or justifying publication.
Judge Windell also found their conduct inconsistent with responsible publication, observing they had already formed a concluded view and indicated they would not be deterred by court orders.
On constitutional arguments, the Court drew a firm line, stating that freedom of expression “does not extend to the unsubstantiated publication of defamatory allegations, particularly where such allegations are directed at damaging existing commercial relationships”.
Targeting customers made things worse
A key factor influencing the Court’s remedy was the decision to contact one of the company’s clients directly.
Judge Windell described the letter as “a targeted communication to a longstanding customer… repeating defamatory allegations and inviting reconsideration of its business relationship”.
Because of that targeted harm, the Court ordered a mandatory retraction – not only a prohibition on future statements.
Moosajee and Munga highlight this as a significant takeaway.
“Targeted communications to a claimant’s customers or business partners may attract an order for mandatory retraction, in addition to an interdict.”
Final interdict and punitive costs
To grant a final interdict, courts must be satisfied that:
- a clear right exists,
- harm has occurred or is reasonably likely, and
- no adequate alternative remedy is available.
The Court found all three were present: Barloworld had a clear right to protect its reputation, harm had already occurred, and damages alone would not prevent further publication.
Costs were awarded on the punitive attorney-and-client scale because the respondents persisted in serious allegations without supporting evidence and escalated the dispute.
What this means for the public
The judgment reinforces several practical lessons for anyone using social media:
- Even reposting or repeating allegations can amount to publication.
- Framing statements as questions or opinions does not automatically protect you.
- Acting “in the public interest” is not a defence unless allegations are true or responsibly verified.
- Directly contacting someone’s employer, clients or partners with accusations can expose you to harsher court orders.
As Moosajee and Munga conclude, the ruling underscores that activists and organisations “are not exempt from the laws of defamation merely because they claim to act in the public interest”.
