Contact
WhatsApp | Whatsapp and the law | Whatsapp messages as evidence

When “just a WhatsApp” becomes legal evidence

WhatsApp and similar messaging platforms have become a staple of modern communication and, increasingly, also business communication. But, viewing these platforms as informal and not binding could be dangerous, as the recent case of Gerritsen Trading CC t/a Gerritsen Drilling SA v Blydskap Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2024/146798) [2025] ZAWCHC 400 (27 August 2025) demonstrates.

Over the years, WhatsApp messages have been incorporated into many civil litigation matters, such as divorces or applications for protection orders, where screenshots of WhatsApp messages have aided in Magistrates or Judges arriving at decisions. Only recently, however, have we started seeing the impact of WhatsApp messages in commercial litigation, with WhatsApp evidence being pertinently referred to in court judgments. 

In the recent Gerritsen Trading matter, the court used WhatsApp messages as the best evidence in the adjudication of disputes between the parties, leading to a provisional liquidation order being granted. 

Gerritsen Drilling (“Gerritsen”) had drilled boreholes for Blydskap Holdings (“Blydskap”), but Blydskap had not paid Gerritsen in full for their services. Numerous WhatsApp messages were exchanged between the directors of Gerritsen and Blydskap, wherein Blydskap made certain promises to make payment of the outstanding balance. This, however, didn’t happen.

Gerritsen issued a liquidation application, which was opposed by Blydskap and in their answering affidavit, Blydskap alluded to certain defences, namely:

  • Funds were being withheld until Gerritsen had provided South African National Standards Reports (SANS) for the drilled boreholes; and
  • The funds would only be due once the entire project had been completed.

The Court, however, found that in the WhatsApp messages, no reference was made by Blydskap to either the SANS reports or the payment upon repair and completion of the final borehole and thus, on face value, the admitted WhatsApp messages were decisive that Blydskap was indebted to Gerritsen, had no reasonable defence and was unable to pay its debts. 

The Court therefore granted the provisional liquidation order against Blydskap and sent a word of caution to all parties to heed the impact of their WhatsApp messages and treat it carefully as potentially admissible evidence.

Disclaimer: This article is the personal opinion/view of the author(s) and does not necessarily present the views of the firm. The content is provided for information only and should not be seen as an exact or complete exposition of the law. Accordingly, no reliance should be placed on the content for any reason whatsoever, and no action should be taken on the basis thereof unless its application and accuracy have been confirmed by a legal advisor. The firm and author(s) cannot be held liable for any prejudice or damage resulting from action taken based on this content without further written confirmation by the author(s). 

January 14, 2026
Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

Culture vs style: When workplace dress codes cross the line

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , , ,

Dress codes are a familiar part of many workplaces, yet employers often fail to calibrate how far they are allowed to go in regulating employee personal appearance. While employers may enforce standards of neatness, safety and professionalism, these rules cannot override constitutional rights, nor can they operate in a discriminatory manner. A recent reminder of this emerged from the Supreme Court of Appeal, where the court had to consider the fairness of dismissing correctional officers for refusing to cut their dreadlocks, contrary to the employer’s dress code.

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

Competition Commission guidelines on confidential information

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , ,

The Competition Commission of South Africa (“Competition Commission”) identified a need to guide merger parties and stakeholders on claiming confidentiality over information. In September 2025, the Competition Commission issued Guidelines on the Commission’s handling of confidential information (“Guidelines”), which, however, are not binding on the Competition Commission, the Competition Tribunal or the Competition Appeal Court, but must be taken into account by these authorities when interpreting and applying the Competition Act 89 of 1998 (“Competition Act”).

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

Termination of joint ownership, rights in question: PIE Act explained

by | Jan 16, 2026 | , , ,

In a recent Western Cape court case where the court ordered the termination of joint ownership of properties, an interesting question arose as to whether the termination of joint ownership did not amount to an eviction contrary to the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from and Unlawful Occupation of Land Act, 19 of 1998 (PIE Act)? We look at the requirements for the termination of joint ownership by our courts and whether this can infringe on the PIE Act.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest