The question of whether disclosing another person’s HIV status publicly constitutes either defamation or breach of privacy came under the judicial spotlight, with a court declaring they are independent and distinct actions that must be pleaded separately.

According to The Star, this comes after a Numsa leader, during a public meeting, mentioned that one of its members is HIV-positive.

The woman, only identified as K, was emotionally traumatised by this. She instituted a damages claim against the union and its member, who had divulged her status, claiming this was defamatory.

The Free State High Court (Bloemfontein) earlier ruled in her favour and ordered Numsa to pay her R100 000 in damages.

Numsa successfully appealed against the ruling in the High Court. Acting Judge HE De La Rey found defamation and a breach of privacy are two separate issues.

The offending disclosure, the judge stated, was categorised as a breach of privacy, which was not included in K’s original case.

Before making the statement, the union leader warned members at the meeting that what he was about to say was going to cause a commotion. 

He then disclosed her HIV status without her consent. He apologised afterwards but the member was stressed and consulted a psychologist.

In his defence, the union leader said her HIV status was common knowledge and he had not intended to defame her.

Judge De La Rey said the publication of K’s personal information was not defamatory.

‘In dealing with cases concerning people living with HIV/AIDS, courts and lawyers must take care not to develop rules that will strengthen rather than diminish the stigma attached to HIV/AIDS,’ she said.

Full report in The Star

Judgment