| Authority | High Court of South Africa — Western Cape Division, Cape Town |
|---|---|
| Jurisdiction | South Africa |
| Relevant law | Protection of Personal Information Act, 2013 (POPIA): ss. 1 (definitions of "personal information" and "processing"), 11; Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996: s. 14 (right to privacy) |
| Type | Court Judgment — Urgent Application (Interdict) |
| Outcome | Application partially granted — interdict granted; public apology and punitive costs refused |
| Started | 31 July 2024 (urgent court hearing) |
| Decided | 6 August 2024 |
| Published | Yes |
| Fine | N/A — no monetary award; interdict granted |
| Parties | Mr Munetsi (Applicant) vs. Mr Madhuyu (First Respondent) and Ms Tonsani (Second Respondent) |
| Case No. | (16255/2024) [2024] ZAWCHC 209 |
| Appeal | N/A |
| Original Source | SAFLII |
| Original Contributor | MZIZI Africa |
Mr Munetsi sought an urgent interdict after the respondents published his mobile phone number on their business Facebook page — with 67,000 followers — inviting viewers to contact him. The Western Cape High Court found this breached POPIA section 11 and granted an interdict ordering removal of the content and prohibiting future publication.
On 17 July 2024, the respondents — Mr Madhuyu and his wife Ms Tonsani, who operated a business social media presence with approximately 67,000 Facebook followers and 33,000 TikTok followers — published a live video broadcast on their Facebook page in which they made disparaging remarks about the applicant, described him as "evil," displayed his photograph, and published his mobile phone number. The video expressly invited viewers to contact the applicant on that number, resulting in a large volume of unsolicited calls to the applicant. The content was also shared on TikTok.
Mr Munetsi approached the Western Cape High Court on an urgent basis on 31 July 2024 seeking an interdict requiring removal of the video and all posts containing his personal information from all the respondents' social media platforms, a prohibition on future publication of his personal information without his consent, a public apology, and punitive costs. The respondents, who were unrepresented, opposed the application and filed virtually identical answering affidavits seeking R1,000,000 in compensation from the applicant for "trauma," an order that he never contact them again, and a public apology from him. When the matter was first called, Mr Madhuyu initially indicated willingness to remove the content, but later that morning withdrew that offer on the basis that removal would harm his business and he had his own complaints against the applicant.
The court identified two principal issues: the POPIA breach arising from the publication of the applicant's mobile number, and the defamation claim arising from the video's content. On the POPIA question, the court applied the definition of "personal information" under section 1, which expressly includes the telephone number of an identifiable living natural person. The court then applied section 11, which provides that personal data may only be "processed" in specified circumstances — none of which applied here, as the respondents had neither the applicant's consent nor any other lawful basis. The court further applied the definition of "processing" under section 1, which includes "dissemination by means of transmission, distribution or making available in any other form," finding that making the applicant's mobile number publicly available on a social media platform with tens of thousands of followers fell squarely within that definition.
The respondents were unable to invoke POPIA's personal or household exemption — which excludes from the Act's requirements the processing of personal information in a purely personal or household capacity — because the publication was made through a business social media account operated for commercial purposes. The court also expressly rejected the argument that prior public availability of the phone number on another platform absolved the respondents of liability for republishing it in this manner. On defamation, the court found that describing the applicant as "evil" was defamatory, but the broader content of the video did not sufficiently support the defamation claim beyond that specific statement. On remedies, the court held that an interdict is an appropriate remedy for a POPIA breach, but that a public apology is not a recognised remedy for a privacy violation — the recognised remedies being damages or an interdict. The applicant's prayer for a public apology was accordingly refused. Punitive costs were also refused as the applicant had not met the required threshold.