Namibia Media Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Lombard and Another (SA 23 of 2020) [2022] NASC 21 (8 July 2022)

Namibia Media Holdings (Pty) Ltd v Lombard and Another (SA 23 of 2020) [2022] NASC 21 (8 July 2022)

The appellants satisfied the standard of reasonable or responsible reporting by accurately reporting statements made by the Minister and Permanent Secretary at a public press conference on a matter of public interest. There was no requirement to independently verify the correctness of official statements or to rigidly apply journalistic guidelines. The High Court misdirected itself in its approach to both the reasonable publication defence and the refusal to allow additional witnesses. The defamation action should have been dismissed.

Citation
[2022] NASC 21
Parties
Appellant: Namibia Media Holdings (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Festus Nakatana; Respondent: Johan Lombaard; Respondent: Golden Game CC
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Namibia
Judgment Date
8 July 2022
Case Number
SA 23 of 2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside; defamation claim dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
Reasonable Publication Defence, Freedom of Expression, Right to Reputation, Judicial Case Management, Procedural Fairness
Source Language
English
Defamation Media Law Constitutional Law Reasonable Publication Defence Freedom of Expression Right to Reputation Judicial Case Management Procedural Fairness

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Namibia Media Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Festus Nakatana

Appellant

Johan Lombaard

Respondent

Golden Game CC

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Supreme Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellants established the defence of reasonable publication in a defamation action involving media reporting on matters of public interest
  2. 2 Whether the High Court erred in refusing leave to call additional witnesses relevant to the truth of the publication
  3. 3 Whether the High Court correctly applied principles of judicial case management and procedural fairness

Ratio Decidendi

The appellants satisfied the standard of reasonable or responsible reporting by accurately reporting statements made by the Minister and Permanent Secretary at a public press conference on a matter of public interest. There was no requirement to independently verify the correctness of official statements or to rigidly apply journalistic guidelines. The High Court misdirected itself in its approach to both the reasonable publication defence and the refusal to allow additional witnesses. The defamation action should have been dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; High Court judgment and order set aside; defamation claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal against both the judgment and order of 2 March 2020 and the ruling of 12 July 2019 succeeds with costs, including those occasioned by employing one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.
  • The order of the High Court is set aside and replaced by: 'The plaintiffs’ claim is dismissed with costs, including one instructing and one instructed legal practitioner.'