David Dikoko, the Executive Mayor of the Southern District Municipality, appeared before the North West Provincial Legislature’s Standing Committee on Public Accounts to explain issues relating to his excessive and overdue municipal cellphone account. During his explanation, Dikoko suggested that the Chief Executive Officer of the Municipality, Thupi Mokhatla, had deliberately altered accounting procedures for politically motivated reasons, allowing the debt to accumulate. Mokhatla sued Dikoko in the Transvaal High Court for defamation. Dikoko raised a special plea of privilege, arguing that his statements were immune from civil liability under constitutional and statutory provisions protecting freedom of speech of municipal councillors and members of legislatures. The High Court rejected the plea, found the statements defamatory, and awarded damages. The Supreme Court of Appeal refused leave to appeal. Dikoko then sought leave to appeal to the Constitutional Court.
Leave to appeal was granted. The appeal on privilege was dismissed. The appeal on quantum succeeded in part, and the damages awarded to Mokhatla were reduced.
The case clarifies the scope and limits of legislative and municipal privilege in South African law, confirming that immunity from civil liability is confined to statements made within the formal proceedings of the relevant legislative body. It underscores the balance between freedom of speech for public representatives and the protection of individual reputation, and it influenced later jurisprudence on restorative approaches to defamation damages.