De Vries Smuts and Others v Maswana and Another (EL 996/08, ECD 2396/08) [2011] ZAECELLC 9 (23 September 2011)

De Vries Smuts and Others v Maswana and Another (EL 996/08, ECD 2396/08) [2011] ZAECELLC 9 (23 September 2011)

The court found that the plaintiffs' submissions lacked merit, as the judgment had properly considered both the natural and implied meaning of the words in question. The objective test for defamation, as set out in authoritative sources, was applied, focusing on whether a reasonable person would consider the plaintiffs' reputation injured. The court rejected the argument that the Landmark Foundation's boycott campaign was overemphasised, noting that the plaintiffs could not complain about the response it elicited. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect another court would find the statement exceeded the limits of constitutionally protected freedom of expression or was...

Citation
[2011] ZAECELLC 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Boudewyn Homberg De Vries Smuts; Plaintiff: Rian Du Toit N.O.; Plaintiff: Boudewyn Homberg De Vries Smuts N.O.; Plaintiff: Ian Forrester N.O.; Plaintiff: Doctor Ross Kobus N.O.; Plaintiff: Edward Gutsche N.O.; Plaintiff: Albert Schultze N.O.; Plaintiff: Johan Van Schalkwyk N.O.; Defendant: Nokulunga Maswana; Defendant: Eastern Cape Parks Board
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2011
Case Number
EL 996/08, ECD 2396/08
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Y Ebrahim
Legal Topics
Defamation, Freedom of Expression, Wrongfulness, Objective Reasonable Person Test
Delict Defamation Freedom of Expression Wrongfulness Objective Reasonable Person Test

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Boudewyn Homberg De Vries Smuts

Plaintiff

Rian Du Toit N.O.

Plaintiff

Boudewyn Homberg De Vries Smuts N.O.

Plaintiff

Ian Forrester N.O.

Plaintiff

Doctor Ross Kobus N.O.

Plaintiff

Edward Gutsche N.O.

Plaintiff

Albert Schultze N.O.

Plaintiff

Johan Van Schalkwyk N.O.

Plaintiff

Nokulunga Maswana

Defendant

Eastern Cape Parks Board

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal Following Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether there is a reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different conclusion regarding the alleged defamatory statement.
  2. 2 Whether the words uttered by the first defendant were defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  3. 3 Whether the court properly considered both the natural and implied meaning of the words.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiffs' submissions lacked merit, as the judgment had properly considered both the natural and implied meaning of the words in question. The objective test for defamation, as set out in authoritative sources, was applied, focusing on whether a reasonable person would consider the plaintiffs' reputation injured. The court rejected the argument that the Landmark Foundation's boycott campaign was overemphasised, noting that the plaintiffs could not complain about the response it elicited. The court concluded that there was no reasonable prospect another court would find the statement exceeded the limits of constitutionally protected freedom of expression or was...

Court Disposition

Application for leave to appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal the judgment and costs order is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The plaintiffs are liable jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, for the costs of the first and second defendant.