IRD Global Limited v The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria

The appellant, IRD Global Limited, a global health organisation registered in Singapore, and the respondent, The Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis and Malaria, an international organisation based in Switzerland, are both peregrini of South African courts. In April 2021, the respondent published on its website a report by its Office of the Inspector General alleging prohibited practices, including conflicts of interest and fraud, by the appellant in relation to a tuberculosis grant in Pakistan. The report was globally accessible online. The appellant regarded the allegations as defamatory and, relying on the fact that its South African attorney accessed and downloaded the report in Johannesburg, launched an urgent application in the Gauteng Division of the High Court for interim interdictory relief, including removal of the report, a retraction and apology, and restraints on further publication. The respondent raised preliminary objections, including lack of jurisdiction and sought security for costs. The High Court held that it lacked jurisdiction and ordered additional security for costs. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court of Appeal.

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

The judgment clarifies South African principles on jurisdiction in cases of internet-based defamation involving foreign parties, reaffirming that mere online accessibility in South Africa is insufficient without real connecting factors. It reinforces that defamation claims, particularly where truth and public interest are raised, should generally proceed by action rather than motion, and that interim retractions or apologies are not competent relief. The case also underscores the strict approach to appellate interference with discretionary cost orders, including security for costs.