City Press and Others v Peace (18650/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 22 (9 February 2017)

City Press and Others v Peace (18650/2014) [2017] ZAGPJHC 22 (9 February 2017)

The court found that the documents requested by the defendants are relevant to the issues in dispute in the pending defamation action, particularly in relation to the defences of truth, substantial truth, public interest, and reasonableness of publication. The plaintiff's objections based on privilege and lack of departmental authority were rejected, as no valid basis for privilege was established and the necessity for departmental authority was not substantiated. The court held that the defendants are entitled to full disclosure of the legal and factual basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the documents sought are neither privileged nor irrelevant. It is in the interests of justice...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPJHC 22
Parties
Defendant: City Press; Defendant: Ferial Haffajee; Defendant: Sipho Masondo; Plaintiff: Mokiti Mapataganye Peace
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 February 2017
Case Number
18650/2014
Procedural Posture
Interlocutory Application / Application for Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(7)
Outcome
Application granted. Plaintiff ordered to comply with defendants' notice for further discovery within fifteen days. Costs awarded against plaintiff.
Judges
M B Mahalelo
Legal Topics
Discovery of Documents, Privilege, Relevance of Evidence, Uniform Rules of Court, Defamation Action
Civil Procedure Discovery of Documents Privilege Relevance of Evidence Uniform Rules of Court Defamation Action

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 6 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

City Press

Defendant

Ferial Haffajee

Defendant

Sipho Masondo

Defendant

Mokiti Mapataganye Peace

Plaintiff

Procedural Posture

Interlocutory Application / Application for Further and Better Discovery Under Rule 35(7)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff is obliged to provide further and better discovery of documents requested by the defendants under Rule 35(3).
  2. 2 Whether the documents sought are relevant to the issues in dispute in the defamation action.
  3. 3 Whether any of the documents are protected by privilege or require departmental authority for disclosure.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the documents requested by the defendants are relevant to the issues in dispute in the pending defamation action, particularly in relation to the defences of truth, substantial truth, public interest, and reasonableness of publication. The plaintiff's objections based on privilege and lack of departmental authority were rejected, as no valid basis for privilege was established and the necessity for departmental authority was not substantiated. The court held that the defendants are entitled to full disclosure of the legal and factual basis of the plaintiff's claim and that the documents sought are neither privileged nor irrelevant. It is in the interests of justice...

Court Disposition

Application granted. Plaintiff ordered to comply with defendants' notice for further discovery within fifteen days. Costs awarded against plaintiff.

Orders

  • The plaintiff is ordered to comply with the defendants’ notice in terms of Uniform Rule 35(3) served on 9 April 2015, within fifteen (15) days of this judgment.
  • Failing compliance, the defendants are granted leave to apply to this Court on the same papers, duly amplified, for an order striking out the plaintiff’s claim with costs.