Khumalo v. Holomisa
South Africa Constitutional Court
2002 (5) SA 401 (2002)
- Written by Curtis Parvin, JD
Facts
Bantu Holomisa (defendant), the editor of a South African newspaper, The Sunday World, published an article accusing Fred Khumalo (plaintiff), a South African politician, of being part of a bank-robbery gang under investigation by law enforcement. Khumalo sued Holomisa for defamation. South African common law did not require the plaintiff in a defamation action to allege that the defamatory statement was false, instead presuming that the statement was unlawful and intentional. The burden of proof then shifted to the defendant to prove the statement was not unlawful or intentional. Among the defenses a defendant could raise were that the statement was true or, in the case of a media defendant, that the statement was reasonable under the circumstances, even if false. Holomisa contended that the common law regarding defamation was unconstitutional because, without the requirement of showing the statement was false, the law interfered with Holomisa’s right to freedom of expression. The trial court ruled in favor of Khumalo, and Holomisa appealed to the South Africa Constitutional Court.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (O’Regan, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
