Bouwer and Others v Tea and Coffee Distributors EP CC and Another (1225/2002) [2011] ZAECELLC 7 (1 August 2011)

Bouwer and Others v Tea and Coffee Distributors EP CC and Another (1225/2002) [2011] ZAECELLC 7 (1 August 2011)

The court found that the publication of the letter to suppliers, while potentially constituting unlawful competition, was an injury that had occurred once and for all and was not likely to be repeated, given the defendants' compliance with all demands and the provision of an apology. The requisites for a final interdict were not met, and the claim for a final interdict was dismissed. Regarding defamation, the letter was not per se defamatory of the first plaintiff, as the ordinary reader would not attribute dishonesty to him but rather see him as a front used by the Stephensons. For the fifth plaintiff, the letter was per se defamatory but only partly true; the proven dishonesty did not...

Citation
[2011] ZAECELLC 7
Parties
Plaintiff: Newton Glen Bouwer; Plaintiff: Newton Glen Bouwer N.O.; Plaintiff: Denise Bouwer N.O.; Plaintiff: Morris Du Plessis N.O.; Plaintiff: Lee-Anne Stephenson; Defendant: Tea & Coffee Distributors EP CC; Defendant: Greg Miles
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 August 2011
Case Number
1225/2002
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Claim one dismissed; claim two dismissed for first plaintiff; nominal damages awarded to fifth plaintiff.
Judges
Pickering
Legal Topics
Unlawful Competition, Defamation, Final Interdict, Damages Quantum
Commercial and Corporate Delict Unlawful Competition Defamation Final Interdict Damages Quantum

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

Parties

Newton Glen Bouwer

Plaintiff

Newton Glen Bouwer N.O.

Plaintiff

Denise Bouwer N.O.

Plaintiff

Morris Du Plessis N.O.

Plaintiff

Lee-Anne Stephenson

Plaintiff

Tea & Coffee Distributors EP CC

Defendant

Greg Miles

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication of the letter by the defendants constituted unlawful competition against the Trust.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to a final interdict restraining the defendants from further publication of defamatory statements.
  3. 3 Whether the letter was per se defamatory of the first and fifth plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the publication of the letter to suppliers, while potentially constituting unlawful competition, was an injury that had occurred once and for all and was not likely to be repeated, given the defendants' compliance with all demands and the provision of an apology. The requisites for a final interdict were not met, and the claim for a final interdict was dismissed. Regarding defamation, the letter was not per se defamatory of the first plaintiff, as the ordinary reader would not attribute dishonesty to him but rather see him as a front used by the Stephensons. For the fifth plaintiff, the letter was per se defamatory but only partly true; the proven dishonesty did not...

Court Disposition

Claim one dismissed; claim two dismissed for first plaintiff; nominal damages awarded to fifth plaintiff.

Orders

  • Plaintiffs' claim for a final interdict is dismissed.
  • Defendants are ordered to pay plaintiffs' costs jointly and severally up to and including 18 June 2002; plaintiffs to pay defendants' costs from 19 June 2002.