Hlakaneso v Stracham and Another (CIV/T 318 of 88) [1994] LSCA 141 (15 August 1994)

C I V / T / 3 1 8 / 88 IN THE H I GH COURT OF L E S O T HO In the m a t t er b e t w e e n: T H E R E S IA H L A K A N E SO P L A I N T I FF v M I C H A EL S T R A C H AM M I T C H EL T R A D I NG S T O R ES 1ST D E F E N D A NT 2ND D E F E N D A NT J U D G M E NT D e l i v e r ed by the H o n o u r a b le Mr. J u s t i ce W . C . M. M a q u t u, on the 15th day of A u g u s t. 1 9 9 4. P l a i n t i f f 's claim is against the Second Defendant and its m a n a g er the First D e f e n d a n t. P l a i n t i ff says she is a female adult spinster who resides at Mount M o o r o si in the Q u t h i ng d i s t r i c t. The Second D e f e n d a nt is a company duly incorporated in /. . . a c c o r d a n ce with the laws of L e s o t ho and c a r r i es on b u s i n e ss as a s u p e r m a r k et at Mount M o o r o s i, Q u t h i n g. -2- P l a i n t i ff c l a i m s: " 1. Payment of the sum of M 5 , 0 0 0 . 00 (five thousand M a l o t i) d a m a g es for unlawful d i s m i s s a l; 2. Payment of M 1 0 , 0 0 0 . 00 (ten thousand M a l o t i) d a m a g es for d e f a m a t i on of P l a i n t i f f 's c h a r a c t e r. 3. I n t e r e st at the r a te of 1 8% a tempora m o r a e. 4. Costs of s u i t. 5. F u r t h er and or a l t e r n a t i ve r e l i e f ." S u m m o ns was served on the 26th J u n e, 1988. A p p e a r a n ce to defend was e n t e r ed on the 12th J u l y, 1 9 8 8. By the end of 1988 p l e a d i n gs w e re v i r t u a l ly closed and the -3- matter was ready for hearing. The matter on the 5th August, 1991 was set down for the 12th N o v e m b e r, 1 9 9 2. It did not proceed. On the 12th N o v e m b e r, 1992 the matter could not proceed because of the state of the roll and because the Court advised Plaintiff to amend paragraph 10 of the D e c l a r a t i o n. An amended D e c l a r a t i on was filed by Plaintiff on the 5th December, 1 9 9 2. The amended D e c l a r a t i on led to the filing of D e f e n d a n t 's amended Plea on the 9th December, 1992. This matter was then set-down for the 17th May, 1994. Plaintiff gave evidence on her own behalf as P W . 1. She says she began to work for Second Defendant on the 5th November, 1987 and was paid weekly until 24th December, 1987 when she was told she would be paid monthly when business resumed after the Christmas break. Her monthly salary would be M150.00 per month. After the Christmas break she worked for only two months. On the 25th February, 1 9 8 8, according to Plaintiff, First Defendant summarily dismissed her -4- c l a i m i ng she w as r e s p o n s i b le for the s h o r t a ge of stock and that she m u st h a ve b e en t a k i ng M 5 0 . 00 per day. It is not c l e ar w h e t h er this was in g o o ds or in c a s h. P l a i n t i ff did not h a n d le m o n e y. She a l so s a ys she was not g i v en any m o n ey in lieu of n o t i c e. W h en this a c c u s a t i on of theft was m a de there were six o t h er p e o p le p r e s e n t, P l a i n t i ff says there was no cause for these f a l se a l l e g a t i o n s. S he s a ys p e o p le loved and r e s p e c t ed her and they did not r e g a rd her as a t h i e f. She c l a i ms M 1 0 0 0 0 . 00 for d e f a m a t i on of c h a r a c t er and M 5 0 0 0 . 00 for u n l a w f ul d i s m i s s a l. U n d er c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on P l a i n t i ff says she looked for a job for two y e a rs and could n ot get any since jobs are hard to c o me by. P l a i n t i ff a d m i t t ed she has c h i l d r en by five d i f f e r e nt m e n, some of w h i ch she does not r e m e m b e r. She denied c o h a b i t i ng w i th T h a b i so D i ck M o n y a n e. She was i n d i f f e r e nt to T h a b i so D i ck M o n y a n e 's w i f e. She says First D e f e n d a nt a c t u a l ly p o i n t ed at h er and called her a t h i e f. She d e n i es she w as on p r o b a t i on w h en she was f i r e d. She says she was e m p l o y ed on p e r m a n e nt t e r m s. She says w h at w as w r i t t en on the w a g es r e g i s t er is i n c o r r e ct in so far as it c o n f l i c ts w i th w h at s he s a y s. In p a r t i c u l ar s he q u e r i es p a ge 44 of the w a g es r e g i s t e r. -5- P l a i n t i ff c l a r i f i ed w h at w as in the a m e n d ed c l a im w h i ch e r r o n e o u s ly s t a t ed s he c l a i m ed M 1 5 0 0 0 . 00 for u n l a w f ul d i s m i s s a l. P l a i n t i ff n e xt and o n ly w i t n e ss w as P W .2 D i ck T h a b i so M o n y a n e. He s a id he l i v ed in S e c o nd D e f e n d a n t 's p r e m i s es n e ar the s h o p. On the d ay P l a i n t i ff w as d i s m i s s e d, F i r st D e f e n d a nt s a id t h e re w as a s h o r t a ge of s t o ck by a b o ut M 1 5 , 0 0 0 . 0 0. F i r st D e f e n d a nt t o ld P W .2 t h at he had b r o u g ht him a t h i e f, m e a n i ng P l a i n t i f f. P l a i n t i ff w as p r e s e nt w h en the w o r ds w e r e. s a i d. T he o t h er p e o p le w ho w e re p r e s e nt w h en the w o r ds w e re said w e re M a j a ra L e t s i e, B e n e d i ct L e t e k a, R a m a k o a i le R a m o l i s e, M a n t h a t e n g, M a p h o ka and o t h e rs w h o se n a m es P W .2 c o u ld n ot r e m e m b e r. PW.2, w as a l so " f i r e d" t he s a me d ay but he g ot all h is t e r m i n al b e n e f i ts i n c l u d i ng n o t i c e. P W .2 d e n i es t h at he c o h a b i ts w i th P l a i n t i f f. P W .2 s a ys w h at F i r st D e f e n d a nt said to P l a i n t i ff w as s h a m e f u l. -6- U n d er c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on P W .2 d e n i ed he w as the p e r s on in c h a r ge of the s u p e r m a r k e t. P W .2 c o n c e d ed he w as the most s e n i or p e r s on in t he d e p a r t m e nt in w h i ch he w o r k ed but d e n i ed he w as in c h a r g e. T he s a l a ry of P W .2 w as M 2 5 0 . 00 per m o n t h. P W .2 d e n i es that he w as g i v en a n y ' m o n ey b e l o n g i ng to P l a i n t i f f. P W .2 a d m i t t ed he had k n o wn P l a i n t i ff for m a ny y e a r s. He d e n i ed they c o h a b i t e d. He d i s p u t ed the c o n t e n ts of the w a g es r e g i s t er i n s o f ar as they c o n f l i c t ed w i th h is e v i d e n c e. P l a i n t i ff a p p l i ed for an a m e n d m e nt of h er D e c l a r a t i on to be in l i ne w i th h er e v i d e n ce and the s u m m o n s. T h is w as u n o p p o s e d. D e f e n d a n ts c l o s ed t h e ir c a se and u r g ed the C o u rt to d i s m i ss P l a i n t i f f 's c l a im w i th c o s t s. T he w a g es r e g i s t er w as h a n d ed in to e n a b le t he C o u rt to r e f er to it in d e t e r m i n i ng the m e r i t s. B a s i c a l ly w h at D e f e n d a n ts a re s a y i ng is that P l a i n t i ff on the e v i d e n ce g i v en h as not m a de out a c a se that c a l ls for an a n s w er f r om the D e f e n d a n t s. -7- It is c o m m on c a u se that from the p l e a d i n gs the onus of proof in this c a se is on the P l a i n t i f f. T he r e a s on being that P l a i n t i f f 's a l l e g a t i o ns r e g a r d i ng the c o n d i t i o ns of e m p l o y m e nt of P l a i n t i ff by the D e f e n d a n ts and t e r m i n a t i on of that e m p l o y m e nt w as d e n i ed by the D e f e n d a n t s. T h e r e f o re P l a i n t i ff w as o b l i g ed to a d d u ce e v i d e n ce to p r o ve e a ch and e v e ry a l l e g a t i on on t h e se i s s u e s. T he f i r st t a sk I h a ve is f i r st bo d e t e r m i ne w h e t h er t h e re is any e v i d e n ce to p r o ve P l a i n t i f f 's c l a i m. If t h e re is no e v i d e n ce then I am o b l i g ed to d i s m i ss P l a i n t i f f 's c l a i m. If t h e re is e v i d e n ce on r e c o rd to p r o ve P l a i n t i f f 's c l a i m, then the C o u rt has the n e xt t a s k, w h i ch is to d e c i de w h e t h er or not s u ch e v i d e n ce is c r e d i b l e. If the e v i d e n ce is n ot c r e d i b l e, P l a i n t i f f 's claim has to be d i s m i s s e d. If P l a i n t i ff i s , b e l i e v ed h is c l a im s u c c e e d s. D e f e n d a n ts in this c a se (by c l o s i ng their c a s e) h a ve i n v i t ed the C o u rt to d e t e r m i ne the i s s ue of c r e d i b i l i ty w i t h o ut h e a r i ng any e v i d e n ce f r om the D e f e n d a n t s. / . . . P l a i n t i ff c l a i ms d a m a g es of M 5 0 0 0 . 00 for u n l a w f ul d i s m i s s a l. -8- T h e re is a d i s p u te on w h e t h er or not P l a i n t i ff w as still on p r o b a t i o n. T h is e m e r g es from the c r o s s- e x a m i n a t i on of P l a i n t i ff by the D e f e n d a n t s. P l a i n t i ff says she s e r v ed what a m o u n t ed to p r o b a t i on b e t w e en November and D e c e m b er 1 9 8 7. D u r i ng this p e r i od P l a i n t i ff was paid w e e k l y. From the 24th D e c e m b e r, 1 9 87 P l a i n t i ff w as paid m o n t h ly like o t h er e m p l o y e e s. T h e r e f o re in P l a i n t i f f 's view she w as now p e r m a n e n t ly e m p l o y e d. T he u se of the term " p e r m a n e n t" t h o u gh c o m m o n ly used in l a b o ur r e l a t i o ns in this c o u n t ry is m i s l e a d i n g. T he r e a s on b e i ng that in terms! of S e c t i on 15 of The E m p l o y m e nt Act of 1967 each party could l a w f u l ly t e r m i n a te the e m p l o y m e nt c o n t r a ct by giving the o t h er one m o n t h 's n o t i c e. E v e r y t h i ng was v e r b a l. We h a ve o n ly the sworn testimony of P l a i n t i ff on the m a t t er but no e v i d e n ce from the D e f e n d a n t s . T he D e f e n d a n ts c h o se to c o n f i ne t h e m s e l v es to c h a l l e n g i ng and t e s t i ng P l a i n t i f f 's e v i d e n ce /... -9- through c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n. They also elicited what evidence (in their f a v o u r) from Plaintiff through c r o s s- e x a m i n a t i o n. Defendants have also invited me to rely on the wages register that was w r i t t en by First Defendant to determine whether or not P l a i n t i f f 's evidence is true. I perused the wages register and noted that it was very neatly w r i t t e n. From page 1 up to page 43 the term temporary e m p l o y m e nt has not been i n s e r t e d. It is inserted for the first time on page 44 in the second line below the name of P l a i n t i f f. This term temporary employment also appears below the names of Mary Malebanye on page 4 4. Plaintiff and Mary M a l e b a n ye are the only people who share a page in the whole wages register. If First Defendant had g i v en e v i d e n ce he might have satisfactorily explained why the term temporary employment first began with P l a i n t i f f. " T e m p o r a ry E m p l o y m e n t" again a p p e a rs b e f o re John at page 46, Rose Masasa on page 4 7, Angelina on page 4 8. In the case of Angelina on page 4 8, the term " p e r m a n e n t" appears o p p o s i te w a g e s. The term " p e r m a n e n t" on Angelina's page is only one in the whole w a g es register. /. . . First D e f e n d a nt would h a ve b e en of g r e at a s s i s t a n ce in e x p l a i n i ng w hy only A n g e l i na is the o n ly p e r m a n e nt e m p l o y ee w h o se p e r m a n e n ce is a c k n o w l e d g ed in w r i t i ng in the whole w a g es r e g i s t e r. -10- W i t h o ut any e v i d e n ce from First D e f e n d a nt I find the register not h e l p f u l. T he t e m p o r a r i n e ss of P l a i n t i ff and others after P l a i n t i ff does not seem to have b e en w r i t t en at the time of e m p l o y m e n t. It could h a ve been w r i t t en at any Lime. M o re d e t a i ls about e m p l o y e es have b e en w r i t t en on page 44 t h an on any o t h er p a ge on the r e g i s t e r. The register o f t en o m i t t ed p a r t i c u l a rs of e m p l o y e es i n c l u d i ng s u r n a m e s. If only First D e f e n d a nt had g i v en e v i d e n ce I might have b e en p e r s u a d ed that no i n f o r m a t i on had been added later in the r e g i s t e r. I cannot reject e v i d e n ce that is on r e c o rd in f a v o ur of s p e c u l a t i o n. I have therefore come to the c o n c l u s i on that P l a i n t i ff must h a ve been given the i m p r e s s i on that she was " p e r m a n e n t ". The only q u e s t i on to d e t e r m i ne in r e l a t i on to the q u e s t i on of u n l a w f ul d i s m i s s al is w h e t h er P l a i n t i ff was paid off by b e i ng g i v en p a y m e nt in lieu of n o t i c e. Plaintiff says she was not and on this she is c o r r o b o r a t ed by P W .2 D i ck M o n y a n e. -11- I c h e c k ed page 44 w h i ch s h o ws in f r o nt of the w o rd " N o t i c e" a d a sh w h i ch h as b e en on top of it a w h i te l i q u id paper e r a s u r e. In f r o nt of the e r a s u re the w o rd " N O N E" is w r i t t e n. W h e re the a m o u nt of p a y m e nt in lieu of n o t i ce is r e f l e c t e d, t h e re is a d a sh that h as been c o v e r ed o v er w i th w h i te liquid p a p e r. T h e re is a c l e ar l a t er a d d i t i on that s h o ws M 1 5 0 . 00 added a b o ve the w h i te l i q u id p a p er e r a s u re of the d a s h. In front of this w h e re the s i g n a t u re of the r e c i p i e nt a re the w o r ds in b l o ck l e t t e rs " P A ID O UT TO D I C K ". T h e re is b e l ow all the f o l l o w i ng p a id out 1 5 0 . 00 to D i ck M o n y a ne ( c o m m on LAW H U S B A N D ), o p p o s i te this is the a m o u nt of M 1 5 0 . 00 for w h i ch P l a i n t i ff has s i g n e d. T h e re is a f l y i ng leaf of an e x a m i n a t i on pad in w h i ch is w r i t t en ( N o t i ce of 1 m o n t h 's pay paid to D i ck as she did not c o me to r e c e i ve her o w n ). It is c l e ar t h at t h e se r e f e r r i ng to p a y m e nt to D i ck M o n y a ne the c o m m on l aw h u s b a nd w e re a d d ed later to the w r o ng c o l u mn b e c a u se the M 1 5 0 . 00 g i v en w as in fact g i v en to P l a i n t i ff h e r s e lf w ho e v en s i g n ed f or it on 2 4 / 2 / 8 8. T h is d a te s e e ms to h a ve b e en a d d ed l a t e r. -12- PW.2 Dick Monyane has his own wife Lisbeth Monyane who also worked for Second Defendant. She always signed for her wages which were given to her but never to her husband, Dick Monyane PW.2. This information is on page 4 of the wages register. On page 12 of the Wages register PW.2 signed for the sum of M1308.45 when he was paid off. Liquid paper has been added to blot out what was originally written. A lot of information was clearly added later including the words "wife's wages" and "Theresia", The later additions give a breakdown of the M1308.45 and end up with the words overpaid by M225.00. Plaintiff's first name is Theresia. PW.2 Dick Monyane denies he was ever given Plaintiff's money in lieu of notice. The absence of First Defendant's explanation of suspect entries in the wages register does not help the Court to draw inferences favourable to case of the Defendants. The evidence of Plaintiff and PW.1 Dick Monyane on the question of failure to pay Plaintiff's money in lieu of notice stands unchallenged. I therefore hold that Plaintiff was never paid any money in lieu of notice. -13- While P l a i n t i ff was not d i s m i s s ed in the m a n n er that she was e n t i t l ed to e x p e ct h a v i ng regard to t he fact that no m i s c o n d u ct was p r o v ed a g a i n st h e r, she did not seriously a t t e m pt to p r o ve the d a m a g es she is c l a i m i n g. She v a g u e ly said in c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on that jobs are hard to come by and she looked for a job for two y e a r s. She did not say e n o u gh or e n l i g h t en the Court s u f f i c i e n t ly to enable the Court to a s s e ss d a m a g es on this i s s u e. M r. Mohau for P l a i n t i ff argued that P l a i n t i ff o f f e r ed e n o u gh e v i d e n ce on d a m a g es for u n l a w f ul d i s m i s s a l. I am u n a b le to a g r e e. P l a i n t i ff is also c l a i m i ng d a m a g es for d e f a m a t i o n. She says she was called a thief or w o r ds to that effect merely b e c a u se there was a s h o r t a ge of the sum of M 1 5 0 00 in the stock in t r a d e. T he fact that she was not even given one m o n t h 's pay in lieu of n o t i ce s u p p o r ts P l a i n t i f f 's e v i d e n c e. First D e f e n d a nt did not give evidence in r e b u t t a l. T he only d e n i al is in the plea and in c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i o n. T h e re w e re at least six p e o p le before whom P l a i n t i ff w as called a thief. T h is in my v i ew amounts to p u b l i c a t i o n. -14- D e f e n d a n ts did not o f f er any e v i d e n ce bo rebut the e v i d e n ce of P l a i n t i ff that this in fact h a p p e n e d. S i n ce First D e f e n d a nt was p r e s e n t, he is o b l i g ed to put the record s t r a i g ht if what P l a i n t i ff and PW.2 say did not h a p p en or h a p p e n ed in a d i f f e r e nt way. It is trite law that P l a i n t i f f 's e v i d e n ce d o es not have to be a c c e p t ed m e r e ly b e c a u se it is u n r e b u t t e d. In c e r t a in c i r c u m s t a n c e s, h o w e v e r, ( e s p e c i a l ly w h e re the a l l e g ed o c c u r r e n ce took p l a ce in the p r e s e n ce of D e f e n d a n t) D e f e n d a n t 's f a i l u re to give his v e r s i on m i g ht e n h a n ce s u p p l e m e n t al i n f e r e n c es in f a v o ur of P l a i n t i f f — H o f f m a nn . & Z e f f e r tt The South A f r i c an Law of E v i d e n ce 4th Ed at p a ge 596. T he m a j or t h r u st of w h at w as s u b m i t t ed by M r. Buys on b e h a lf of D e f e n d a n ts is t h at P l a i n t i ff must a l l e ge and p r o ve i p s i s s i ma verba or at l e a st allege w o r ds m o re or less used by the F i r st D e f e n d a n t. What a c c o r d i ng to e v i d e n ce did First D e f e n d a nt say w h en he s a c k ed P l a i n t i f f? In her e v i d e n c e - i n - c h i ef P l a i n t i ff s a i d: /. . . -15- "I w as not given any n o t i ce p a y. F i r st D e f e n d a nt said I was a t h i e f. I was in f r o nt of his o f f i c e. T h e re w e re m o re than 6 p e o p l e. He said my s t o ck is short by M 1 5 0 0 0 . 0 0 ." In c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on P l a i n t i ff puts w h at F i r st D e f e n d a nt said as f o l l o w s: " F i r st D e f e n d a nt called me a t h i e f. He said this thief of a w o m an ( p o i n t i ng at m e ). He was saying it in S e s o t h o . . , he said I was taking M 5 0 . 00 per day after the s t o ck was s h o rt and there w as s t o ck t a k i n g ." PW.2 Dick M o n y a ne told the C o u rt that First D e f e n d a nt said the stock w as short by M 1 5 0 0 0 . 00 b e c a u se he had brought him P l a i n t i ff w ho was a t h i e f. PW.2 said he w as with about 5 o t h er p e o p le w h en this was said. P a r a g r a ph 10 of P l a i n t i f f 's D e c l a r a t i on s t a t es that; " T he F i r st D e f e n d a nt c h a r g ed P l a i n t i ff of h a v i ng s t o l en S e c o nd D e f e n d a n t 's m o n ey in the sum of -16- M 1 5 0 0 0 . 00 and called her a thief a m o n g st at least six other p e o p le who at all m a t e r i al times held Plaintiff in great esteem. As this was not true, Plaintiff s u f f e r ed d a m a g es in the sum of M 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 0 . . ." The employment of PW.2 was terminated together with that of P l a i n t i f f, but P W .2 was given all his terminal b e n e f i ts among which was m o n ey in lieu of notice and . s e v e r a n ce pay. A m i s c o n d u ct of theft was imputed to P l a i n t i ff and c o n s e q u e n t ly she was summarily dismissed as if she was a thief a l t h o u gh there was no proof that she was a t h i e f. The e m p l o y m e nt of PW.2 was terminated b e c a u se according to P W . 2, PW.2 had brought Plaintiff who was a thief and caused First D e f e n d a nt to e m p l oy her. What PW.2 says s u b s t a n t i a l ly c o r r o b o r a t es what P l a i n t i ff says save that they do not say e x a c t ly the same thing. To call a person a thief or a m u r d e r er is p er se d e f a m a t o r y. The fact that she was i n s t a n t ly dismissed w i t h o ut n o t i ce as a thief would b e, u n d e r s c o r es the fact that she was not only called a thief but she was also treated as o n e. As Mr. M o h au (for P l a i n t i f f) has argued, this must h a ve lowered P l a i n t i ff in the e s t i m a t i on of right t h i n k i ng m e m b e rs of s o c i e ty and d i m i n i s h ed the esteem in w h i ch P l a i n t i ff is held by the six people p r e s e n t. -17- Mr. B u ys r e f e r r ed me to the case of Beesham v S o l i d a r i ty P a r ty and A n o t h er 1 9 91 (1) SA 889 at page 892C where A l e x a n d er J said: "As far as the plaintiff is concerned his case was simple. The words complained of were defamatory per se. Neither innuendo or secondary meaning was alleged." It seems c l e ar that P l a i n t i ff was called a thief and accused of c a u s i ng loss of s t o ck of M 1 5 0 0 0 . 00 and instantly d i s m i s s e d. There w as n e v er any s u g g e s t i on that the word thief which is p er se d e f a m a t o ry w as used w i th an innocent i n t e n t i on e.g. what a p p e a rs in Burchell The Law of D e f a m a t i on p a ge 92 where a lady is said to h a ve said to Lord X: "Lord X, you are a thief, you have stolen my /... heart." -18- In the i n s t a nt c a se the d e f a m a t i on is c l a r i f i ed and a c c o m p a n i ed by a c t i on that l e a v es no one in d o u bt that First D e f e n d a nt not only m e a nt P l a i n t i ff w as a t h i ef but a c t u a l ly t r e a t ed her as o n e. In M o h a m ed v K a s s im 1973 2 SA 1 it w as held that the s t a t e m e nt that P l a i n t i ff had s t o l en M 1 0 0 0 0 . 00 w as d e f a m a t o r y. In this c a se P l a i n t i ff is c a l l ed a t h i ef and is a c c u s ed of s t e a l i ng Ml 5 0 0 0 . 0 0. E v e ry p e r s on is e n t i t l ed to h is or her g o od n a me and r e p u t a t i o n. O ur b a s is of t he law of d e l i ct is fault or w h at is c a l l ed c u l p a. T h e re c an be no d o u bt that First D e f e n d a nt is b l a m e w o r t hy for c a l l i ng P l a i n t i ff a t h i ef and t r e a t i ng h er as a thief w i t h o ut h a v i ng i n v e s t i g a t ed the m a t t er p r o p e r l y. First D e f e n d a n t 's w o r ds and c o n d u ct are p r e s u m ed to h a ve b e en a c c o m p a n i ed by an a n i m us i n j u r i a n di u n l e ss F i r st D e f e n d a nt can c o n v i n ce the C o u rt that he had no such an i n t e n t i o n. To put it in V e s s e ls J. A's w o r ds in N a t i o n a le Pers Bpk v Long 1 9 30 AD 87 at 9 9 - 1 0 0: "...it is a principle of our law which applies to libel and slander as to other wrongs that if a man acts recklessly,not heeding whether he will or will not injure /... another, he cannot be heard to say he did not intend to hurt." -19- In this p a r t i c u l ar c a se the i n t e n t i on of F i r st D e f e n d a nt is not in i s s ue b e c a u se he c h o se to r e m a in s i l e n t. The First R e s p o n d e n t 's a n i m us i n j u r i a n di is t h e r e f o re deemed to be p r e s e nt b e c a u se P l a i n t i f f 's c l a im in that respect s t a n ds u n r e b u t t e d. The c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on of D e f e n d a n ts was d i r e c t ed at P l a i n t i f f 's love a f f a i rs a nd that she had four c h i l d r en by d i f f e r e nt m e n. T h is P l a i n t i ff a d m i t t e d. T he r e l e v a n ce of this to the c a se b e f o re C o u rt is in my v i ew a bit far- f e t c h e d. It d o es not f o l l ow that b e c a u se P l a i n t i ff was not lucky in c o n j u g al m a t t e r s, she has a bad n a m e. Even if she d o es not for any r e a s on want to c o n f o rm to the c o n v e n t i o n al r u le of p r o c r e a t i on t h r o u gh m a r r i a g e, that does not a u t o m a t i c a l ly m e an she is n e c e s s a r i ly i m m o r a l. It was in c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on a l l e g ed that P l a i n t i ff was P W , 2 's l o v e r, s he d e n i ed t h i s. First D e f e n d a nt did not bring any e v i d e n ce to b a ck up this a l l e g a t i o n. If she had taken some o n e 's h u s b a nd t h en it could be said she had done s o m e t h i ng c l e a r ly w r o n g. P e o p l e 's s e x u al lives are p r i v a t e. T h e re is a d i f f e r e n ce b e t w e en s i n, c o n v e n t i o n al / . . . m o r a l i ty and e t h i c s. O p i n i o ns d i f f er a g r e at d e al in s u ch m a t t e r s. -20- Our law of d e f a m a t i on a c k n o w l e d g es t he i n d i v i d u a l 's r i g ht to p r i v a cy and p e r s o n al d i g n i t y. N o b o dy in our law is e n t i t l ed to p u b l i sh w h a t e v er is u n p l e a s a nt a b o ut o t h er p e o p le u n l e ss this is in the p u b l ic i n t e r e s t. M c K e r r on The Law of D e l i ct 7th E d i t i on at page 1 86 h as s u m m a r i s ed our legal p o s i t i on c r i s p ly as f o l l o w s: "In English law truth in itself is a good defence, but it is settled law in South Africa that truth without the element of public benefit, although it may be pleaded in mitigation of damages, is not a complete defence." It s e e ms to me u n h e l p f ul for F i r st D e f e n d a nt to h a ve g o ne out of his w ay to d i s p a r a ge P l a i n t i f f 's s e x u al m o r a l i t y. A lot of p e o p le s t r ay f r om the p a th of v i r t ue in sexual m a t t e rs w i t h o ut n e c e s s a r i ly b e i ng t h i e v e s. P l a i n t i ff to put it in M c K e r r o n 's w o r ds in The Law of O e l i ct 7th E d i t i on at p a ge 2 0 7: "is entitled to general damages for the wrong done to him by the violation of his right to retain his good name and fame untarnished and the consequent injury to his feelings." -21- T he a m o u nt of d a m a g es t h at P l a i n t i ff is e n t i t l ed to is a m a t t er at the C o u r t 's d i s c r e t i o n. N e v e r t h e l e ss I h a ve to t a ke the f o l l o w i ng f a c t o rs i n to a c c o u n t :- 1. P l a i n t i ff is an o r d i n a ry s p i n s t er w ho l i v es in a v i l l a g e. 2. F i r st D e f e n d a nt c a l l ed P l a i n t i ff a t h i ef and d i s m i s s ed h er f r om e m p l o y m e nt t r e a t i ng her as a t h i ef o u g ht to be t r e a t e d. 3. F i r st D e f e n d a nt h as s h o wn no g r o u n ds to c a ll P l a i n t i ff a t h i e f, i n s t e ad he d e n i ed c a l l i ng h er a t h i ef and i n s t e ad t h r o u gh c r o s s - e x a m i n a t i on a t t a c k ed P l a i n t i f f 's s e x u al m o r a l i ty w h i ch w as n ot " r e l e v a nt to t he a s p e ct of t he P l a i n t i f f 's c h a r a c t er t h at w as t r a d u c e d ". M c K e r r on Law of O e l i ct p a ge 2 0 8. 4. T he w o r ds w e re u t t e r ed in the p r e s e n ce of six /.. . other p e o p l e. -22- First D e f e n d a nt as a l r e a dy s t a l ed has put h i m s e lf in a p o s i t i on in w h i ch the f o l l o w i ng words of De V i l l i e rs A. J in Maisel v Van N a e r en 1 9 60 (4) SA 836 at 850G f i t: "If the person concerned does not in fact provide proof, an inference would mostly arise that he must, at the time of publication, have contemplated at least the possibility of being unable to justify his action." We have to also to n o te w h at De V i l l i e rs A . J had said e a r l i er at page 840 C G of Maisel v Van N a e r en i.e: "In Roman Dutch Law Defamation is a species of injuria, and a claim for general damages is merely an instance of amende profitable being claimed under actio injuriarum... Dolus or animus injuriandi is therefore conscious wrongful' intention, in the sense that a wrongful invasion of another's rights is either desired as an end in itself or is forseen as a consequence of the deliberate attainment of some other object." I have noted that at the time s u m m o ns w as i s s u e d, all c l a i ms above the sum of M 2 0 0 0 . 00 had to be b r o u g ht in the H i gh C o u r t. D u r i ng the p e r i od t h is m a t t er was b e f o re court the j u r i s d i c t i on of the M a g i s t r a t e 's C o u rt has been increased to M 1 0 0 0 0 . 0 0. -23- The j u d g m e nt of the C o u rt is t h e r e f o re as f o l l o w s: (a) D e f e n d a n ts are a b s o l v ed from the i n s t a n ce in r e s p e ct of d a m a g es for u n l a w f ul d i s m i s s a l. (b) D e f e n d a n ts a re d i r e c t ed to pay M 5 0 0 0 . 0 00 (Five thousand M a l o t i) as d a m a g es for d e f a m a t i on of P l a i n t i f f 's c h a r a c t e r. (c) D e f e n d a n ts are d i r e c t ed to pay c o s ts of suit, W . C . M. M A Q U TU J U D GE For the P l a i n t i ff : For the D e f e n d a n t s: M r. M. M o h au M r. S. C. B u ys