29 September 2026

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 urgent court hearing: 19 August 2026

Date of urgent court judgment: 20 August 2026

Judge: Collis J

Status: Matter re-enrolled; In pleadings

Last updated: 29 September 2026

*****

Urgent application

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 sought, 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:

The application was not urgent as the impugned articles have been online for over three weeks and other publications were also running the story;
No exceptional circumstances existed to ventilate the matter in urgent court;
The alleged harm would not be remedied by granting the relief that UNISA sought;
UNISA had failed to comply with the Uniform Rules of Court in bringing the application;
There was a reasonable inference that the application has been brought for an ulterior purpose;
The impugned statements were true and in the public interest, or they constituted reasonable publication; and
The requirements for an interim (and final) interdict had 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 urgency, and ordered UNISA to pay the First and Second Respondents costs on a punitive attorney and client scale, including the costs of two counsel.

Application for final relief (in the ordinary course)

On 28 September 2026, UNISA filed an Amended Notice of Motion, Notice in terms of Rule 16A, and Supplementary Founding Affidavit seeking to re-enroll the matter in the ordinary course.

The matter remains opposed and further updates will be shared in due course.

High Court papers:

Urgent application