Dlamini v Sesele (A250/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 104 (23 September 2010)

Dlamini v Sesele (A250/2009) [2010] ZAFSHC 104 (23 September 2010)

The appellate court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant did utter defamatory and contumelious words concerning the respondent at the school meeting, thereby impairing the respondent's reputation and dignity. The trial court's implicit credibility findings favoured the respondent, whose version was consistent with the prevailing circumstances and supported by the conduct of the meeting and the reactions of those present. The appellant's denial was contradicted by suggestions made during cross-examination and by the evidence as a whole. The quantum of damages awarded—R20,000 for impairment of reputation and R20,000 for impairment of dignity—was held to be equitable and...

Citation
[2010] ZAFSHC 104
Parties
Appellant: Motsamai Charles Dlamini; Respondent: Moeketsi Basil Sesele
Court
Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 September 2010
Case Number
A250/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kroonstad District Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed in full; trial court judgment upheld on both merits and quantum.
Judges
Rampai, Van Zyl
Legal Topics
Defamation, Dignitas, Fama, Quantification of Damages, Corruption Allegation, Injuria
Delict Defamation Dignitas Fama Quantification of Damages Corruption Allegation Injuria

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 6 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Motsamai Charles Dlamini

Appellant

Moeketsi Basil Sesele

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Kroonstad District Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the appellant uttered defamatory and contumelious words concerning the respondent at the school meeting.
  2. 2 Whether the words impaired the respondent's reputation (fama) and dignity (dignitas).
  3. 3 Whether the quantum of damages awarded by the trial court was excessive or justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The appellate court found, on a balance of probabilities, that the appellant did utter defamatory and contumelious words concerning the respondent at the school meeting, thereby impairing the respondent's reputation and dignity. The trial court's implicit credibility findings favoured the respondent, whose version was consistent with the prevailing circumstances and supported by the conduct of the meeting and the reactions of those present. The appellant's denial was contradicted by suggestions made during cross-examination and by the evidence as a whole. The quantum of damages awarded—R20,000 for impairment of reputation and R20,000 for impairment of dignity—was held to be equitable and...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed in full; trial court judgment upheld on both merits and quantum.

Orders

  • The appeal fails in toto.
  • The judgment is upheld in respect of the merits and the quantum.