Francois Jurie Nicolaas Harman v Pieter Hendrik Strydom

The respondent, Pieter Hendrik Strydom, an attorney acting for the Land Bank, obtained judgment against the appellant, Francois Harman, for unpaid loan amounts after Harman and his company defaulted on agricultural loans and the company was liquidated. Harman thereafter posted allegations on his Facebook account accusing Strydom and Land Bank officials of unethical and criminal conduct. These posts triggered numerous vitriolic, racist and life‑threatening comments by Harman’s followers, some of which Harman facilitated by identifying Strydom and his law firm. After Harman continued posting despite a protection order under the Protection from Harassment Act, Strydom brought an urgent ex parte application in the High Court. Petersen J ordered Harman to remove the offending posts and issued interim orders (by rule nisi) compelling Harman to disclose, under oath, the identities of persons who posted or shared the defamatory content. On the return date, Djaje DJP confirmed the interim orders as final. Harman appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal, contending that his constitutional right to be heard was violated and that the disclosure orders were overbroad and unlawful.

The appeal was dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.

The case affirms that urgent ex parte interdicts, including those with final effect, may be constitutionally permissible where immediate harm is threatened, particularly in the context of social media abuse. It reinforces the availability of procedural safeguards under Rule 6(12)(c) to cure any potential audi alteram partem concerns. The judgment also clarifies that POPIA and privacy rights do not shield individuals who disseminate defamatory or threatening content online, and that courts may compel disclosure of identities to enable victims to vindicate their rights.