Date published: 03-03-2026

In a landmark judgment that will set the judicial landscape in Eswatini delivered on the 3^rd March 2026 by the Apex Court of Eswatini has endorsed a High Court judgment, that a complainant in a defamation matter can approach the Courts for redress by seeking an interdict and an apology against publication of defamatory articles.

This is the matter of the Eswatini Observer (Pty) Limited and two others v Dede Management Consultancy (Pty) Limited. In this case the Appellants caused to be published two articles on the 9th and 16th February 2025 in relation to the Respondent in their Sunday publications. The Respondent had been awarded a big tender – through the office of the Auditor General – to conduct a forensic audit into the Royal Science and Technology Park. It was contended by the Respondent in the High Court that the articles that were published by the Appellants were understood by the reasonable reader that it had dishonestly and corruptly colluded with the Auditor General in getting the tender, in that it lacked experience and capacity for the tender, that the Respondent was set up hastily in order to get the tender, that one of the members of the Respondent was a highly discredited individual and that the Respondent had fraudulently misrepresented its financial tax obligations in the tender.

It is on that premise that the Respondent approached the High Court seeking a declaratory order that the two articles published by the Appellants were defamatory, false and unlawful. The Respondent further sought an order that the Appellants be interdicted and/or restrained from publishing the articles as they were not afforded the right to comment before their publication. Lastly, the Respondent sought an order that the Appellants be ordered to retract the defamatory articles in 72 hours with the concomitant issuance of an apology.

The Appellants had opposed the matter primarily on the allegation that the issue they published was of public interest and therefore they had a right in terms of the Constitution to publish them in exercising their freedom of expression and freedom of the media entitlements and that the matter ought to be referred to trial (oral evidence).  Both Courts have disagreed and held that a Court faced with a defamation suit is faced with a duty to determine if a publication is defamatory and that occurs on publication itself through the affidavits and no [additional] oral evidence is required. The Court a quo went on to hold that the articles in question falsely accused the respondent of dishonesty, dishonorable conduct or immorality in procuring the tender. Further that section 24 of the Constitution relied upon the Appellants does not guarantee the savaging of someone’s reputation and must be balanced with the Constitutional right to dignity and reputation. The Court found that the defenses of the Appellants could not be sustained.

The judgment confirms the new position of our law that one can now approach the Court for an interdict against unlawful defamatory statements and seek an apology. Damages must be pursued though through action proceedings where oral evidence will be led.

Should you require further elucidation on the subject you may contact the writer.