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
Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

Customary and Civil marriages are equal, says Constitutional Court

The Constitutional Court has recently delivered a significant judgment reaffirming that customary marriages and civil marriages hold equal legal status. Importantly, the Court clarified the implications and validity of antenuptial contracts within the context of customary marriages.

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

CSOS or Court? The choice is yours

The recent judgment in Parch Properties 72 (Pty) Ltd v Summervale Lifestyle Estate Owner’s Association and Others 2026 (1) SA 449 (SCA) (17 October 2025) has brought welcome clarity to the long‑standing question of whether the Community Schemes Ombud Service Act 9 of 2011 (CSOS Act) limits the jurisdiction of the High Court.

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Hurt feelings ≠ Constructive dismissal

Constructive dismissal was incorporated into South African labour law in the 1980s and later codified in the Labour Relations Act 66 of 1995 (“LRA”). In terms of section 186(1)(e) of the LRA, an employee may resign, whether with or without notice, and claim unfair dismissal on the basis that their continued employment had become intolerable. Although the concept can be difficult to apply in practice, the Constitutional Court has clarified its meaning and reaffirmed its role within our law.

Sign up to our newsletter

Pin It on Pinterest