WhatsApp as Evidence: The Gerritsen Decision and What It Means for Litigators

Written by Gomolemo Leeuw (candidate attorney) (BA Law, LBB)

Published on November 10, 2025

Gerritsen Trading CC t/a Gerritsen Drilling SA v. Blydskap Holdings (Pty) Ltd (2024/146798) [2025] ZAWCHC 400 (27 August 2025), a recent Western Cape High Court ruling, has confirmed what many lawyers have long suspected: WhatsApp exchanges are no longer casual sideshows. They can be used as evidence in court if handled appropriately.

What Gerritsen Says About WhatsApp Evidence

Acting Judge Cooke began his ruling in this case by candidly acknowledging that WhatsApp communications, which are time-stamped and frequently conversational by nature, can provide an impartial window into the intentions, agreements, and expectations of the parties at a specific point in time.

Interestingly, the texts were not considered supplementary evidence by the court. Rather, it regarded them as important to the case and accepted them without hesitation. The implication is clear: WhatsApp communications may have the same probative weight as conventional written contracts or oral agreements if they are properly contextualized and unopposed.

Authenticity: The Unspoken Precondition

Although a challenge to the messages' authenticity was not raised in the Gerritsen ruling, it is clear from its logic that courts will nonetheless demand a strong foundation in cases where authenticity is contested.

Screenshots alone will not be enough when parties disagree on the veracity or content of WhatsApp messages. The following still needs to be demonstrated, frequently by giving testimony:

• a) The sender and recipient's identities;
• b) The communication's integrity (unedited content)
• c) Chain of custody (the presentation and preservation of the evidence)
• d) Contextual credibility, which includes neighbouring messages, reaction patterns, and time stamps

Put another way, litigants still need to substantiate their claims in the digital age. Although it can help, Section 15 of the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act (ECTA) does not negate the necessity of foundational reliability.

Practical Illustration: How a Text Can Win a Case

To bring the point home, consider a viral anecdote posted by @Zweli_Thixo (a.k.a. "God Guluva") on social media:

Even if this story is humorous and comes from an unreliable source, it demonstrates a basic legal principle: an admission against interest, even in a casual WhatsApp message, can be strong evidence.

This kind of communication essentially gets around the requirement for a formal written agreement or IOU. It documents the debtor's acknowledgement of the debt in their own words. The evidence value is indisputable, but caution must still be exercised to establish authorship and avoid disagreements concerning manipulation.

Conclusion: A Double-Edged Tool

Gerritsen's message is clear: WhatsApp messages are now subject to the evidentiary rule. Depending on how they are utilized, stored, and presented, they have the power to conclusively establish facts, bolster assertions, or even weaken a party's case.

However, litigators need to exercise caution. Despite their seeming informality, conversations have significant legal implications. When WhatsApp is used carelessly, it may become a trap, converting thoughtless remarks into embarrassing admissions. But when used well, it can strengthen your argument by providing direct, up-to-date information that no affidavit can equal.

Gomolemo Leeuw
Candidate Attorney