ABM College SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Media 24 Holdings (Pty) Ltd (4215/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 402 (26 August 2021)

ABM College SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Media 24 Holdings (Pty) Ltd (4215/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 402 (26 August 2021)

The court found that the disputed paragraphs in the plaintiffs' particulars of claim (10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.6) attributed secondary meanings to the article that were not directly stated nor reasonably implied by a reasonable reader. The plaintiffs failed to plead extrinsic facts or circumstances to justify these innuendos, as required by Rule 18(4). The absence of such facts rendered the particulars of claim incapable of sustaining a cause of action for defamation and made them vague and embarrassing. The court held that the offending paragraphs constituted an irregular step and ordered their striking out, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their particulars of claim...

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 402
Parties
Plaintiff: ABM College SA (Pty) Ltd; Plaintiff: College on Hills (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Media 24 Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 August 2021
Case Number
4215/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Portions of Particulars of Claim as Irregular Step Under Rule 30(1)
Outcome
Application granted. The disputed paragraphs in the particulars of claim are struck out. Plaintiffs are ordered to amend their particulars of claim within ten days. Costs awarded to the defendant.
Judges
JF Pretorius
Legal Topics
Defamation, Pleading Requirements, Innuendo, Rule 18 Compliance, Striking Out Irregular Step
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Defamation Pleading Requirements Innuendo Rule 18 Compliance Striking Out Irregular Step

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

ABM College SA (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

College on Hills (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Media 24 Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Application to Strike Out Portions of Particulars of Claim as Irregular Step Under Rule 30(1)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiffs' particulars of claim sufficiently plead facts to justify the innuendos relied upon in their defamation claims.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim comply with Rule 18(4) and are not vague or embarrassing.
  3. 3 Whether the disputed paragraphs are capable of sustaining a cause of action for defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the disputed paragraphs in the plaintiffs' particulars of claim (10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.6) attributed secondary meanings to the article that were not directly stated nor reasonably implied by a reasonable reader. The plaintiffs failed to plead extrinsic facts or circumstances to justify these innuendos, as required by Rule 18(4). The absence of such facts rendered the particulars of claim incapable of sustaining a cause of action for defamation and made them vague and embarrassing. The court held that the offending paragraphs constituted an irregular step and ordered their striking out, granting the plaintiffs leave to amend their particulars of claim...

Court Disposition

Application granted. The disputed paragraphs in the particulars of claim are struck out. Plaintiffs are ordered to amend their particulars of claim within ten days. Costs awarded to the defendant.

Orders

  • Paragraphs 10.2, 10.3, 10.4, 12, 16.2, 16.3, 16.4, 16.6 and 18 of the plaintiffs' particulars of claim are struck out.
  • The plaintiffs are ordered to amend their particulars of claim within ten days from date of this order.