Beckett and Another v Buthelezi (195/88) [1990] ZASCA 13 (15 March 1990)

Beckett and Another v Buthelezi (195/88) [1990] ZASCA 13 (15 March 1990)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the statements published in Frontline magazine were defamatory of the respondent, imputing that he commanded well-drilled impi regiments mandated to commit criminal violence. The evidence did not establish the truth of these allegations; respondent's commitment to non-violence and negotiation was supported by his speeches and conduct. The incidents of violence involving Inkatha members were not shown to be under respondent's command or mandate. The defence of justification failed as the factual averments were not proven. The defence of fair comment also failed, as the underlying facts were not substantiated. The public policy defence was rejected;...

Citation
[1990] ZASCA 13
Parties
Appellant: Denis Beckett; Appellant: Saga Press (Proprietary) Limited; Respondent: Mangosuthu Gatsa Buthelezi
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 March 1990
Case Number
195/88
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Durban and Coast Local Division
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Corbett, Van Heerden, E M Grosskopf, Friedman, Goldstone
Legal Topics
Defamation, Justification, Fair Comment, Public Policy Defence, Quantum of Damages
Delict Defamation Justification Fair Comment Public Policy Defence Quantum of Damages

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

Parties

Denis Beckett

Appellant

Saga Press (Proprietary) Limited

Appellant

Mangosuthu Gatsa Buthelezi

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Durban and Coast Local Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published statements in the November 1986 issue of Frontline magazine were defamatory of the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the defences of truth and justification, fair comment, or public policy rendered the publication lawful.
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court was excessive.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the statements published in Frontline magazine were defamatory of the respondent, imputing that he commanded well-drilled impi regiments mandated to commit criminal violence. The evidence did not establish the truth of these allegations; respondent's commitment to non-violence and negotiation was supported by his speeches and conduct. The incidents of violence involving Inkatha members were not shown to be under respondent's command or mandate. The defence of justification failed as the factual averments were not proven. The defence of fair comment also failed, as the underlying facts were not substantiated. The public policy defence was rejected;...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • Appellants to pay the costs of the application for condonation for late filing of the record and provision of security.