Du Plessis v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Another (26357/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1112; 2016 (3) SA 178 (GP) (2 September 2015)

Du Plessis v Media 24 t/a Daily Sun and Another (26357/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 1112; 2016 (3) SA 178 (GP) (2 September 2015)

The court found that the article published by the Daily Sun was substantially false and defamatory of the plaintiff. The defendants failed to properly investigate the facts and published exaggerated and untrue statements, including claims that Orel Khoza was detained in a cold storage for two hours, his hair was frozen, and he was subjected to cruelty. The court held that the publication was not reasonable and not in the public interest, as it undermined the plaintiff's dignity and reputation. The defences of truth, public interest, privilege, and fair comment were rejected due to the falsity and embellishment of the facts. The court concluded that the defendants were liable for...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 1112
Parties
Plaintiff: Bekker du Plessis; Defendant: Media 24 t/a Daily Sun; Defendant: Themba Khumalo
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 September 2015
Case Number
26357/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Defendants found liable for defamation; damages awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
B R Tokota
Legal Topics
Defamation, Media Liability, Public Interest Defence, Damages for Injury to Reputation
Delict Telecoms and Media Defamation Media Liability Public Interest Defence Damages for Injury to Reputation

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

Parties

Bekker du Plessis

Plaintiff

Media 24 t/a Daily Sun

Defendant

Themba Khumalo

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the publication was wrongful and intentional.
  3. 3 Whether the defences of truth, public interest, privilege, and fair comment exclude liability.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the article published by the Daily Sun was substantially false and defamatory of the plaintiff. The defendants failed to properly investigate the facts and published exaggerated and untrue statements, including claims that Orel Khoza was detained in a cold storage for two hours, his hair was frozen, and he was subjected to cruelty. The court held that the publication was not reasonable and not in the public interest, as it undermined the plaintiff's dignity and reputation. The defences of truth, public interest, privilege, and fair comment were rejected due to the falsity and embellishment of the facts. The court concluded that the defendants were liable for...

Court Disposition

Defendants found liable for defamation; damages awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • The article published by the Daily Sun on 29 October 2010 concerning the plaintiff was defamatory of him.
  • The defendants are ordered, jointly and severally, to pay the plaintiff R80,000 as compensation, the one paying the other to be absolved.