Menu
PLA - EN (1)

The University of South Africa v EdNews.Africa

Case: The University of South Africa v EdNews.Africa and Others (Case No. 192997/2026)

Court: Pretoria High Court

Date of hearing: 19 August 2026

Date of judgment: 20 August 2026

Judge: Collis J

Status: Finalised; matter struck from the roll due to a lack of urgency, with attorney and client costs ordered against the Applicant

Last updated: 20 August 2026

*****

Overview: EdNews.Africa and journalist Edwin Naidu, the First and Second Respondents, opposed an urgent defamation interdict application brought against them by the University of South Africa (“UNISA“) in the Pretoria High Court.

In its application, which was instituted on Wednesday, 12 August 2026, UNISA soughts, among others, a take-down order of certain reportage published on the EdNews.Africa website, and an order to restrain the First and Second Respondents from further reportage on certain matters in the midst of an alleged “ongoing governance crisis” at the University.

The First and Second Respondents opposed the urgent application, which they argued constituted a “gagging order”, on the following grounds:

  1. The application is not urgent as the impugned articles have been online for over three weeks and other publications are also running the story;
  2. No exceptional circumstances exist to ventilate this matter in urgent court;
  3. The alleged harm will not be remedied by granting the relief that UNISA seeks;
  4. UNISA has failed to comply with the Uniform Rules of Court in bringing the application;
  5. There is a reasonable inference that the application has been brought for an ulterior purpose;
  6. The impugned statements are true and in the public interest, or they constitute reasonable publication; and
  7. The requirements for an interim (and final) interdict have not been met.

The First and Second Respondents were represented by Michael Power, Tina Power, and Sophie Smit from Power Law Africa.

Moxii Africa successfully applied to intervene as amicus curiae.

In an order dated Thursday, 20 August 2026, Collis J struck UNISA’s application from the urgent court roll due to a lack of urgeny, and ordered UNISA to pay the First and Second Respondents costs on a punitive attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.

High Court papers:

Related Posts