Invader Trailers CC v DC and Solar Power CC and Another (2025-158161) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1052 (1 October 2025)

begin wrapper begin container begin header begin slogan-floater end slogan-floater - About SAFLII About SAFLII - Databases Databases - Search Search - Terms of Use Terms of Use - RSS Feeds RSS Feeds end header begin main begin center # South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria You are here: SAFLII >> Databases >> South Africa: North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria >> 2025 >> [2025] ZAGPPHC 1052 | Noteup | LawCite sino index ## Invader Trailers CC v DC and Solar Power CC and Another (2025-158161) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1052 (1 October 2025) Invader Trailers CC v DC and Solar Power CC and Another (2025-158161) [2025] ZAGPPHC 1052 (1 October 2025) Download original files PDF format RTF format make_database: source=/home/saflii//raw/ZAGPPHC/Data/2025_1052.html sino date 1 October 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA Case number: 2025-158161 Date of hearing:  18 September 2025 Date delivered: 1 October 2025 (1)                REPORTABLE: YES /NO (2)                OF INTEREST TO OTHERS JUDGES: YES /NO (3) REVISED DATE 1/10/25 SIGNATURE In the application between: INVADER TRAILERS CC                                                            Applicant and DC & SOLAR POWER CC                                             First Respondent PIETER JACOBUS BARNARD                                Second Respondent This judgment is handed down electronically by the Judge whose name is reflected herein, and is submitted to the parties or their legal representative by email. This order is further uploaded to the electronic file of CaseLines by the Judge or his Registrar. The date of this order is deemed to be 1 October 2025. JUDGMENT SWANEPOEL J : [1]      This is an urgent application seeking an order that the respondents shall remove a video that the second respondent, the sole member of the first respondent, has posted to Facebook and Youtube. The applicant alleges that the video is defamatory of it. The applicants also seek an interdict restraining the respondents from publishing, disseminating or displaying defamatory material regarding the applicant, its products and services. [2]      The applicant manufactures off-road trailers. The respondents install electrical systems in trailers. On 17 August 2025 the second respondent posted a video on Youtube and on Facebook with the title: “ Trailer and Vehicle Installation gone wrong. Why proper wiring and battery setup matters.” [3]      At the outset the parties requested me to view the video so that I could have a full understanding of its contents. The video is 9 minutes 28 seconds in length. At the beginning of the video the second respondent features with an Invader trailer prominently situated behind him on which the Invader logo is clearly displayed for some 2 minutes and 28 seconds. Llater in the video the Invader logo is again displayed. [4]      On two occasions a banner was displayed which read: “ Not the trailer brand but the work done on it.” [5]      Below the video, in the commentary section, the respondents wrote that the video: “ ....does not target a specific brand of trailer vehicle or system manufacturer but is used as an example of a badly installed system by some installer and what the difference is between a bad installation and a typical good installation.” [6]      The second respondent then proceeded to show the electrical installation on the trailer. He demonstrated that the installation was insecurely attached to the trailer and he explained that especially in an off-road trailer, which will likely traverse harsh terrain, there is a danger of such an installation being damaged and catching alight. The second respondent also opined that some of the wiring was inadequate for the purpose for which it was intended. The second respondent contrasted the installation in the Invader trailer with an installation that he has done, opining that his installation was superior to the installation on the Invader trailer. [7]      At no stage did the second respondent say that the applicant was responsible for the allegedly improper installation. The applicant contends that the video contained the innuendo that the applicant’s product was inferior. The applicant alleges that the second respondent omitted to mention that the installation in the particular trailer had been done by a third party and not by the applicant. [8]      I am not convinced that the reasonable viewer, “ of average intelligence, sophistication and education with no legal training or other special discipline” [1] would have come to the conclusion that the second respondent was criticizing the applicant’s workmanship. The respondents clearly stated in the video, and in the comments thereto, that the video was not intended to target any specific product, but was aimed at comparing different installations, not different makes of trailer. I do not believe that the applicant has established the innuendo that it relies upon. [9]      However, even if I were to accept the applicant’s contention, that the video was defamatory, then the respondents contend that the comments made by the second respondent were fair. The elements of this defence were set out in The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mc Bride (Johnson and Others, Amici Curiae) [2] : [9.1]       The defamatory statements are comment or opinion; [9.2]       The comments are fair; [9.3]       The factual allegations being commented on are true; [9.4]       The comments relate to a matter of public interest. [10]    The Constitutional Court  explained the defence as follows in The Citizen (supra) : [3] “ [81]       Nearly a century ago, in the judgment that firmly authenticated the defence in South African law, Innes CJ remarked that the use of the term ‘fair’ to describe the defence is ‘not very fortunate’. He was right. As he explained, the criticism sought to be protected need not ‘commend itself’ to the court. Nor need it be ‘impartial or well-balanced”. In fact, ‘fair’ in the defence means merely that the opinion must one be that a fair person, however extreme, might honestly hold, even if the views are ‘extravagant, exaggerated, or even prejudiced’. The comment need be fair only in the sense that objectively speaking it qualifies ‘as an honest, genuine (though possibly exaggerated or prejudiced) expression of opinion relevant to the facts upon which it was based, and not disclosing malice’. . . [82]        So to dub the defence ‘fair comment’ is misleading. If, to be protected, comment has to be ‘fair’, the law would require expressions of opinion on matters of fact to be just, equitable, reasonable, level-headed and balanced. That is not so. An important rationale for the defence of protected or ‘fair’ comment is to ensure that divergent views ae aired in public and subjected to scrutiny and debate. [83]        Protected comment need thus not be ‘fair or just at all in any sense in which these terms are commonly understood. Criticism is protected even if extreme, unjust, unbalanced, exaggerated and prejudiced, so long as it expresses an honestly-held opinion, without malice, on a matter of public interest on facts that are true. In the succinct words of Innes CJ, the defendant must ‘justify the facts’; but he need not justify the comment.” [11]    There is no suggestion in the applicant’s papers that the second respondent’s comments were motivated by malice. In fact, the respondents specifically pleaded that the comments were fair and not motivated by malice, and the applicant did not take issue with the respondents’ assertion. [12]    The second respondent was clearly stating an opinion regarding certain electrical installations. He explained in the video why he criticized a specific installation, and why he regarded it as dangerous. I have no doubt that the second respondent’s opinions are honestly held, are ‘fair’ in the manner explained in The Citizen, and that his opinion regarding potentially dangerous electrical installations are in the public interest. [13]    For the aforesaid reasons the application must fail. The respondents were not represented by an attorney, and although the respondents seek the costs of two counsel, none were on record in the matter and thus a costs order in favour of the respondents is inappropriate. [14]    I make the following order: The application is dismissed. SWANEPOEL J JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT GAUTENG DIVISION PRETORIA Counsel for the applicant: Adv. JH Lerm Instructed by: De Wet Attorneys Counsel for the respondents: None (in person) Hearing on: 18 September 2025 Judgment on: 1 October 2025 [1] Moyse and Others v Mujuru 1999 (3) SA 39 (ZS) at page 46 E [2] The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd and Others v Mc Bride (Johnson and Others, Amici Curiae) 2011 (4) SA 191 (CC) [3] At para [81] sino noindex make_database footer start