Dendy v University of the Witwatersrand and Others (2015/03) [2005] ZAGPHC 39; 2005 (5) SA 357 (W); [2005] 2 All SA 490 (W); 2005 (9) BCLR 901 (W) (5 April 2005)

Dendy v University of the Witwatersrand and Others (2015/03) [2005] ZAGPHC 39; 2005 (5) SA 357 (W); [2005] 2 All SA 490 (W); 2005 (9) BCLR 901 (W) (5 April 2005)

The court held that the plaintiff's claims for damages based on alleged violations of constitutional rights to dignity and procedural irregularities do not disclose a cause of action. The conduct complained of, namely the refusal to appoint the plaintiff and the failure to provide reasons, was not objectively insulting or offensive and was outwardly lawful. The proper remedy for such procedural irregularities is judicial review, not damages. The court found no basis in the Constitution to develop the common law to recognise the cause of action contended for by the plaintiff. The exception to Claims A and B was upheld and those claims were set aside. However, the court found that the...

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 39
Parties
Plaintiff: Mervyn Dendy; Defendant: University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg; Defendant: Neil Garrod; Defendant: Andrew St Quintin Skeen
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 April 2005
Case Number
2015/03
Procedural Posture
Civil Exception / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception to Claims A and B upheld; those claims set aside. Exception to Claims C, D, and E dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Boruchowitz
Legal Topics
Right to Dignity, Actio Injuriarum, Appropriate Relief, Administrative Action, Defamation, Joinder of Parties
Constitutional Law Civil Procedure Delict Right to Dignity Actio Injuriarum Appropriate Relief Administrative Action Defamation +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 19 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 6
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mervyn Dendy

Plaintiff

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg

Defendant

Neil Garrod

Defendant

Andrew St Quintin Skeen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Exception / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Is an award of damages an appropriate remedy for the violation of a fundamental constitutional right to dignity?
  2. 2 Does the plaintiff's claim for damages based on procedural irregularities and failure to provide reasons disclose a cause of action?
  3. 3 Is the publication of the alleged defamatory email and letters actionable?

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's claims for damages based on alleged violations of constitutional rights to dignity and procedural irregularities do not disclose a cause of action. The conduct complained of, namely the refusal to appoint the plaintiff and the failure to provide reasons, was not objectively insulting or offensive and was outwardly lawful. The proper remedy for such procedural irregularities is judicial review, not damages. The court found no basis in the Constitution to develop the common law to recognise the cause of action contended for by the plaintiff. The exception to Claims A and B was upheld and those claims were set aside. However, the court found that the...

Court Disposition

Exception to Claims A and B upheld; those claims set aside. Exception to Claims C, D, and E dismissed. Each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The exception to Claims A and B is upheld. These claims are set aside. The plaintiff is given leave, if so advised, to file amended particulars of claim within one month.
  • The exception to Claims C, D and E is dismissed.