Lungisa Khuza and King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality v Nontandabuzo Khanyiwe

The respondent was an employee in the cleansing department of the King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality. Municipal refuse plastic bags marked as not for sale were discovered at various hardware and China Mall outlets. The first appellant, a superintendent, investigated the matter as part of his official duties. During the investigation and subsequent internal processes, the respondent was accused of involvement in the theft and sale of the municipal refuse bags. She alleged that the first appellant accused her of theft in the presence of other municipal officials, causing humiliation and reputational harm. Disciplinary proceedings were later instituted, during which the respondent pleaded guilty to gross dishonesty pursuant to a plea-bargaining agreement and received a final written warning. She nevertheless instituted a civil claim for defamation, seeking damages of R600 000.

The appeal was upheld. The order of the court a quo was set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the respondent’s claim with costs on scale A. The respondent was ordered to pay the appellants’ costs on appeal, including the costs of the application for leave to appeal, on scale B.

This judgment is significant for clarifying the application of qualified privilege in the employment context. It confirms that statements made by employers or supervisors during bona fide investigations and disciplinary processes are generally protected by qualified privilege, even if they are potentially defamatory. The case reinforces the principle that internal workplace communications aimed at addressing alleged misconduct do not lightly give rise to defamation liability.