Argus Printing & Publishing Company Ltd. v Inkatha Freedom Party (468/90) [1992] ZASCA 63; 1992 (3) SA 579 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 185 (A) (15 May 1992)

Argus Printing & Publishing Company Ltd. v Inkatha Freedom Party (468/90) [1992] ZASCA 63; 1992 (3) SA 579 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 185 (A) (15 May 1992)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there are no considerations of legal or public policy which justify excluding political bodies from the class of non-trading corporations entitled to sue for damages for defamation. The law of defamation already provides wide latitude for political debate and freedom of expression, and any weaknesses can be remedied as needed. Denying political bodies the right to sue would leave them vulnerable to defamatory attacks without legal recourse, particularly smaller organizations lacking media access. The court distinguished the position of the State, which is unique and not analogous to political bodies, and found no logical basis for excluding political...

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 63
Parties
Appellant: Argus Printing & Publishing Company Limited; Respondent: Inkatha Freedom Party
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 May 1992
Case Number
468/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division After Judgment for Damages for Defamation; Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered.
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
E M Grosskopf, Corbett, Hoexter, Hefer, Goldstone
Legal Topics
Defamation, Corporate Reputation, Public Policy, Freedom of Expression
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Corporate Reputation Public Policy Freedom of Expression

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 5 Authorities cited 29 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Argus Printing & Publishing Company Limited

Appellant

Inkatha Freedom Party

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Witwatersrand Local Division After Judgment for Damages for Defamation; Appeal Heard and Judgment Delivered.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a political body, as a non-trading corporation, is entitled to sue for damages for defamation calculated to cause financial prejudice.
  2. 2 Whether considerations of public or legal policy require the exclusion of political bodies from the class of non-trading corporations entitled to sue for defamation.
  3. 3 Whether the law of defamation, as applied to political bodies, unduly fetters freedom of political expression.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that there are no considerations of legal or public policy which justify excluding political bodies from the class of non-trading corporations entitled to sue for damages for defamation. The law of defamation already provides wide latitude for political debate and freedom of expression, and any weaknesses can be remedied as needed. Denying political bodies the right to sue would leave them vulnerable to defamatory attacks without legal recourse, particularly smaller organizations lacking media access. The court distinguished the position of the State, which is unique and not analogous to political bodies, and found no logical basis for excluding political...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Political bodies are not excluded from the class of non-trading corporations entitled to sue for damages for defamation.