Engelbrecht v Van Der Merwe (2415/18) [2021] ZANCHC 30 (23 July 2021)

Engelbrecht v Van Der Merwe (2415/18) [2021] ZANCHC 30 (23 July 2021)

The court found that the Defendant published a series of emails and statements to third parties, including officials, colleagues, and the public, which were objectively defamatory of the Plaintiff. The statements accused the Plaintiff of incompetence, criminality, dishonesty, and collusion, and were understood by recipients as damaging to his reputation and dignity. The Defendant admitted to sending the emails but failed to discharge the onus of proving the truth of the allegations or that their publication was in the public interest. The Defendant persisted in his conduct despite a protection order and repeated requests to desist, aggravating the harm. The Plaintiff suffered reputational...

Citation
[2021] ZANCHC 30
Parties
Applicant: Frankel Engelbrecht; Respondent: Frederick Lodewikus van der Merwe
Court
Northern Cape High Court, Kimberley
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 July 2021
Case Number
2415/18
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages for defamation is upheld.
Judges
Moses
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages Assessment, Publication of Defamatory Statements, Intentional Wrongdoing, Protection From Harassment Act
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Damages Assessment Publication of Defamatory Statements Intentional Wrongdoing Protection From Harassment Act

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

Frankel Engelbrecht

Applicant

Frederick Lodewikus van der Merwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Defendant's emails and statements constituted wrongful and defamatory publication concerning the Plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the Defendant acted intentionally in publishing defamatory statements to third parties.
  3. 3 Whether the Defendant discharged the onus to prove truth and public interest as defences to defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the Defendant published a series of emails and statements to third parties, including officials, colleagues, and the public, which were objectively defamatory of the Plaintiff. The statements accused the Plaintiff of incompetence, criminality, dishonesty, and collusion, and were understood by recipients as damaging to his reputation and dignity. The Defendant admitted to sending the emails but failed to discharge the onus of proving the truth of the allegations or that their publication was in the public interest. The Defendant persisted in his conduct despite a protection order and repeated requests to desist, aggravating the harm. The Plaintiff suffered reputational...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages for defamation is upheld.

Orders

  • The Defendant is ordered to pay the Plaintiff the amount of R800,000.00 as damages.
  • Interest on the said amount a tempore morae from date of judgment until final payment.