Cele v Avusa Media Ltd (08/10831) [2013] ZAGPJHC 15; [2013] 2 All SA 412 (GSJ) (14 February 2013)

Cele v Avusa Media Ltd (08/10831) [2013] ZAGPJHC 15; [2013] 2 All SA 412 (GSJ) (14 February 2013)

The court found that the articles and altered photo image, when read in context, were not defamatory of the plaintiff. The reasonable reader would interpret the plaintiff's statements and the image as advocating a tough stance against violent crime, not as incitement to murder or indiscriminate violence. The...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2013] ZAGPJHC 15
Parties
Plaintiff: Bheki Hamilton Cele; Defendant: Avusa Media Limited
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 February 2013
Case Number
08/10831
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed.
Judges
Kathree-Setiloane
Legal Topics
Defamation, Dignity Infringement, Actio Injuriarum, Reasonable Publication, Fair Comment, Freedom of Expression
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Dignity Infringement Actio Injuriarum Reasonable Publication Fair Comment Freedom of Expression

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Bheki Hamilton Cele

Plaintiff

Avusa Media Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the articles and altered photo image published by the defendant are defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the publication of the altered photo image infringed the plaintiff's dignity.
  3. 3 Whether the publication of the plaintiff's image without consent was wrongful and actionable under actio injuriarum.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the articles and altered photo image, when read in context, were not defamatory of the plaintiff. The reasonable reader would interpret the plaintiff's statements and the image as advocating a tough stance against violent crime, not as incitement to murder or indiscriminate violence. The plaintiff, as a public figure, was expected to tolerate robust criticism and satire. The altered photo image was a parodic representation and did not infringe the plaintiff's dignity, as a reasonable politician in his position would not have been hurt by its publication. The publication of the plaintiff's image without consent was not wrongful, as it was not for commercial purposes...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed.

Orders

  • The plaintiff’s claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendant’s costs.