Delange v Costa (433/87) [1989] ZASCA 6; [1989] 2 All SA 267 (A) (14 March 1989)

Delange v Costa (433/87) [1989] ZASCA 6; [1989] 2 All SA 267 (A) (14 March 1989)

The court held that for an action for injuria to succeed, there must be a wrongful act, intention, and actual impairment of dignity. The test for wrongfulness is objective, requiring the conduct to be measured against societal norms. The respondent's statement constituted legitimate criticism within the context of business competition and did not exceed the bounds of what is acceptable. There is no absolute right not to be criticised, and honest criticism is not wrongful. Although the appellant's dignity was subjectively impaired, the communication did not amount to a wrongful act and therefore did not constitute injuria. The appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1989] ZASCA 6
Parties
Appellant: D M Delange; Respondent: P R Costa
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 March 1989
Case Number
433/87
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Corbett, Joubert, Smalberger, Vivier, Nicholas
Legal Topics
Injuria, Dignity, Legitimate Criticism, Animus Injuriandi
Delict Injuria Dignity Legitimate Criticism Animus Injuriandi

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

Parties

D M Delange

Appellant

P R Costa

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Final Appellate Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent's written statement constituted a wrongful act amounting to injuria.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant's dignity was unlawfully impaired by the respondent's criticism.
  3. 3 Whether legitimate criticism in a business context can amount to injuria.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that for an action for injuria to succeed, there must be a wrongful act, intention, and actual impairment of dignity. The test for wrongfulness is objective, requiring the conduct to be measured against societal norms. The respondent's statement constituted legitimate criticism within the context of business competition and did not exceed the bounds of what is acceptable. There is no absolute right not to be criticised, and honest criticism is not wrongful. Although the appellant's dignity was subjectively impaired, the communication did not amount to a wrongful act and therefore did not constitute injuria. The appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.