Branko v Moffat and Another (30069/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 304 (10 June 2014)

Branko v Moffat and Another (30069/12) [2014] ZAGPJHC 304 (10 June 2014)

The court found that the statements made by Mr Qithi to journalists were defamatory of the plaintiff, both in their content and intent. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff had an unblemished reputation in the boxing industry and had made every reasonable effort to promote Ms Noni Tenge's mandatory defence fight. The defendants' conduct, particularly Mr Qithi's, was motivated by malice and calculated to injure the plaintiff's reputation. The defences of truth, fair comment, public benefit, and constitutional freedom of expression were rejected, as the statements were not true, not fair or reasonable, and exceeded permissible bounds. The court held that all elements of delictual...

Citation
[2014] ZAGPJHC 304
Parties
Plaintiff: Milenkovic Branko; Defendant: Qithi Moffat; Defendant: Boxing South Africa
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2014
Case Number
30069/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. The first and second defendants are ordered to pay damages jointly and severally.
Judges
M Victor
Legal Topics
Defamation, Injuria, Damages for Reputation, Malice, Truth and Public Benefit, Constitutional Freedom of Expression
Delict Defamation Injuria Damages for Reputation Malice Truth and Public Benefit Constitutional 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 3 Authorities cited 5 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Milenkovic Branko

Plaintiff

Qithi Moffat

Defendant

Boxing South Africa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the first defendant to journalists were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the statements were made wrongfully and with intent to injure the plaintiff's reputation.
  3. 3 Whether the defences of truth, fair comment, public benefit, and constitutional freedom of expression exclude liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by Mr Qithi to journalists were defamatory of the plaintiff, both in their content and intent. The evidence demonstrated that the plaintiff had an unblemished reputation in the boxing industry and had made every reasonable effort to promote Ms Noni Tenge's mandatory defence fight. The defendants' conduct, particularly Mr Qithi's, was motivated by malice and calculated to injure the plaintiff's reputation. The defences of truth, fair comment, public benefit, and constitutional freedom of expression were rejected, as the statements were not true, not fair or reasonable, and exceeded permissible bounds. The court held that all elements of delictual...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. The first and second defendants are ordered to pay damages jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The first and second defendants are ordered jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the amount of R250,000 to the plaintiff in respect of Claim A.
  • In respect of Claim B, the first and second defendants are ordered to pay to the plaintiff the sum of R250,000 jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.