Malema’s Lawsuit Against Kunene Struck Off The Roll
EFF leader Julius Malema has suffered a setback in his R1-million defamation lawsuit against Patriotic Alliance deputy president Kenny Kunene after the matter was struck from the roll of the Gauteng High Court in Johannesburg on Tuesday.
The case was removed from the court roll after a crucial document, although filed on time, was not properly uploaded onto the CaseLines electronic court platform due to an administrative error.
Presiding Judge Leonard Twala explained that while the document had been submitted within the required timeframe, a necessary step to make it visible to the court had not been completed until Monday night. As a result, the court was unable to properly consider the matter, leading to its removal from the roll.
The ruling means Malema’s legal team will be responsible for paying the legal costs incurred by Kunene’s lawyers in relation to Tuesday’s proceedings.
Despite the setback, the matter is far from over. Malema’s legal representatives indicated that they intend to reinstate the case, subject to further instructions from their client.
The lawsuit stems from comments allegedly made by Kunene during an appearance on the MacG podcast in February this year. During the interview, Kunene reportedly claimed that Malema was linked to a so-called “Big Five” drug cartel.
Malema subsequently launched legal action against the Patriotic Alliance deputy president, arguing that the remarks were defamatory and had damaged his reputation. He is seeking R1 million in damages.
The EFF leader has consistently denied any association with criminal activity and maintains that the allegations are false and harmful to his standing as a political leader.
Tuesday’s development does not deal with the merits of the defamation claim itself. Instead, it relates solely to procedural issues surrounding the filing and accessibility of court documents.
Legal experts note that matters struck from the roll because of procedural defects can often be re-enrolled once the outstanding issues have been addressed. Should Malema proceed with reinstating the case, the court will at a later stage be required to determine whether Kunene’s comments were defamatory and whether damages should be awarded.
The dispute adds another chapter to the increasingly public tensions between prominent political figures and parties, with legal battles becoming a common feature of South Africa’s political landscape.
For now, Malema’s claim remains unresolved, while Kunene emerges with a procedural victory and a costs order in his favour. The future of the case will depend on whether Malema instructs his legal team to place the matter back before the court.