Engelbrecht and Another v Independent Media (Pty) Ltd and Another (28924/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 506 (3 December 2019)

Engelbrecht and Another v Independent Media (Pty) Ltd and Another (28924/2019) [2019] ZAGPJHC 506 (3 December 2019)

The court found that the statements published by the first defendant were defamatory, false, and unlawful. The publications accused the plaintiffs of corruption and fraud, damaging their reputation and dignity within the legal and insolvency professions. The defendants failed to retract or remove the statements...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 506
Parties
Plaintiff: Johan Francois Engelbrecht; Plaintiff: Icon Insolvency Practiontioners (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Independent Media (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Luyolo Mkentane
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
3 December 2019
Case Number
28924/2019
Procedural Posture
Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Before the High Court
Outcome
Default judgment granted against the first defendant; interdictory relief and damages awarded to the plaintiffs.
Judges
Twala M L
Legal Topics
Defamation, General Damages, Interdictory Relief, Unlawful Publication
Delict Defamation General Damages Interdictory Relief Unlawful Publication

Source-derived case record

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Johan Francois Engelbrecht

Plaintiff

Icon Insolvency Practiontioners (Pty) Ltd

Plaintiff

Independent Media (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Luyolo Mkentane

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Default Judgment Application / Application for Default Judgment Before the High Court

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published statements by the first defendant were defamatory and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiffs are entitled to interdictory relief and damages for defamation.
  3. 3 What quantum of damages is appropriate for the injury to reputation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements published by the first defendant were defamatory, false, and unlawful. The publications accused the plaintiffs of corruption and fraud, damaging their reputation and dignity within the legal and insolvency professions. The defendants failed to retract or remove the statements despite requests, causing ongoing harm. The requirements for interdictory relief were met, and the plaintiffs had no alternative remedy. The court held that awarding damages to both plaintiffs would be unreasonable, as their reputations are intertwined. Accordingly, a single award of damages was made, and the first defendant was ordered to remove the defamatory statements and pay...

Court Disposition

Default judgment granted against the first defendant; interdictory relief and damages awarded to the plaintiffs.

Orders

  • The statements published on 8 and 15 April 2019 by the first defendant titled 'Net closes on group of rogue liquidators' and 'Pamodzi returns to haunt Master’s Office' are declared defamatory and false.
  • It is declared that the publication of the statements by the first defendant was and continues to be unlawful.