Aglae v Henrie & Anor (CS 98/2017) [2020] SCSC 617 (30 September 2020)

Aglae v Henrie & Anor (CS 98/2017) [2020] SCSC 617 (30 September 2020)

The article published by the Defendants under the headings 'Elements of Criminality' and 'Questionable Funds' contained false statements imputing criminality and questionable conduct to the Plaintiff, which were not supported by facts and published with wanton disregard for the truth. The defences of truth, fair comment, and public interest failed as the statements were false, lacked factual basis, and were made with malice. The publication was therefore defamatory, and the Plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Citation
[2020] SCSC 617
Parties
Plaintiff: Martin Aglae; 1st Defendant: Gervais Henrie; 2nd Defendant: Xpress Printing
Court
Supreme Court
Jurisdiction
Seychelles
Judgment Date
30 September 2020
Case Number
CS 98/2017
Procedural Posture
Civil / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the Plaintiff
Legal Topics
Defamation, Libel, Damages, Injunction
Source Language
English
Tort Media Law Defamation Libel Damages Injunction

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Martin Aglae

Plaintiff

Gervais Henrie

1st Defendant

Xpress Printing

2nd Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the Defendants was defamatory to the Plaintiff
  2. 2 Whether the defences of truth, fair comment, and public interest are available to the Defendants
  3. 3 Quantum of damages for defamation

Ratio Decidendi

The article published by the Defendants under the headings 'Elements of Criminality' and 'Questionable Funds' contained false statements imputing criminality and questionable conduct to the Plaintiff, which were not supported by facts and published with wanton disregard for the truth. The defences of truth, fair comment, and public interest failed as the statements were false, lacked factual basis, and were made with malice. The publication was therefore defamatory, and the Plaintiff was entitled to damages.

Court Disposition

Judgment for the Plaintiff

Orders

  • Defendants to pay Plaintiff SCR 10,000.00 jointly and severally with interest and costs
  • Permanent injunction restraining Defendants from publishing further defamatory material against Plaintiff