De Wet and Others v Scheepers (21021/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 793 (27 October 2022)

De Wet and Others v Scheepers (21021/2020) [2022] ZAGPPHC 793 (27 October 2022)

The court found that the defendant published numerous statements accusing the plaintiffs of fraud, collusion, forgery, and unethical conduct in the administration of a deceased estate. These statements were made to institutions and individuals who rely on the plaintiffs' professional reputation. The defendant admitted to making the statements, conceded their defamatory nature, and failed to prove any defence such as truth, fair comment, or public interest. The investigation by Sanlam Trust absolved the plaintiffs of wrongdoing, and no evidence supported the defendant's allegations. The court held that all elements of defamation were proven. Given the seriousness of the defamation and its...

Citation
[2022] ZAGPPHC 793
Parties
Plaintiff: Franco Jacques De Wet; Plaintiff: Johan Wilhelm Christiaan Nel; Plaintiff: Nel & De Wet Attorneys; Defendant: Ocker Scheepers
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 October 2022
Case Number
21021/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendant found liable for defamation and ordered to pay damages and costs.
Judges
van der Westhuizen
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages Quantification, Professional Reputation, Publication of Defamatory Statements
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Damages Quantification Professional Reputation Publication of Defamatory Statements

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

Parties

Franco Jacques De Wet

Plaintiff

Johan Wilhelm Christiaan Nel

Plaintiff

Nel & De Wet Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ocker Scheepers

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the defendant about the plaintiffs were defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant's statements were wrongful and made with intent to injure the plaintiffs' reputation.
  3. 3 Whether the defendant proved any valid defence such as truth, fair comment, or public interest.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant published numerous statements accusing the plaintiffs of fraud, collusion, forgery, and unethical conduct in the administration of a deceased estate. These statements were made to institutions and individuals who rely on the plaintiffs' professional reputation. The defendant admitted to making the statements, conceded their defamatory nature, and failed to prove any defence such as truth, fair comment, or public interest. The investigation by Sanlam Trust absolved the plaintiffs of wrongdoing, and no evidence supported the defendant's allegations. The court held that all elements of defamation were proven. Given the seriousness of the defamation and its...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiffs. Defendant found liable for defamation and ordered to pay damages and costs.

Orders

  • The defendant is to pay an amount of R50,000.00 to the first plaintiff.
  • The defendant is to pay an amount of R50,000.00 to the second plaintiff.