Clover SA (Pty) Limited and Another v Sintwa (CA2011/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 77; [2016] 12 BLLR 1265 (ECG); (2017) 38 ILJ 350 (ECG) (13 September 2016)

Clover SA (Pty) Limited and Another v Sintwa (CA2011/2015) [2016] ZAECGHC 77; [2016] 12 BLLR 1265 (ECG); (2017) 38 ILJ 350 (ECG) (13 September 2016)

The court held that statements made by the second appellant during the CCMA arbitration proceedings were relevant to the issue of the respondent's dismissal, which was based on allegations of fraud. As such, the statements were protected by qualified privilege. The respondent failed to prove that the statements were actuated by malice or unsupported by reasonable grounds. The fact that another operator was not charged did not logically support an inference of malice. The court a quo erred in finding the statement irrelevant and in inferring malice. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded, and the respondent's claim was dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 77
Parties
Appellant: Clover SA (Pty) Limited; Appellant: Frederick Bopp; Respondent: Harrison Sintwa
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2016
Case Number
CA2011/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo's Judgment on Damages for Defamation Arising From Statements Made During Arbitration Proceedings.
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's action dismissed with costs.
Judges
S M Mbenenge, R Griffiths
Legal Topics
Qualified Privilege, Defamation, Malice, Ccma Arbitration, Employment Dismissal, Damages
Delict Labour Law Civil Procedure Qualified Privilege Defamation Malice Ccma Arbitration Employment Dismissal +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Clover SA (Pty) Limited

Appellant

Frederick Bopp

Appellant

Harrison Sintwa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From the Court a Quo's Judgment on Damages for Defamation Arising From Statements Made During Arbitration Proceedings.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by the second appellant during arbitration proceedings was protected by qualified privilege.
  2. 2 Whether the statement was relevant to the arbitration proceedings and thus privileged.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent proved that the statement was actuated by malice or unsupported by reasonable grounds.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that statements made by the second appellant during the CCMA arbitration proceedings were relevant to the issue of the respondent's dismissal, which was based on allegations of fraud. As such, the statements were protected by qualified privilege. The respondent failed to prove that the statements were actuated by malice or unsupported by reasonable grounds. The fact that another operator was not charged did not logically support an inference of malice. The court a quo erred in finding the statement irrelevant and in inferring malice. Accordingly, the appeal succeeded, and the respondent's claim was dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's action dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds, with costs.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and substituted with: 'The action is dismissed with costs, such costs to include the costs occasioned by the employment of counsel, taxed on the applicable Magistrate’s court scale.'