Finnaughty and Others v Malan and Others (22/15159) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1477 (29 December 2023)

Finnaughty and Others v Malan and Others (22/15159) [2023] ZAGPJHC 1477 (29 December 2023)

The court found that the particulars of claim did not contain sufficient averments to sustain the pleaded cause of action for defamation based on innuendo. The background facts pleaded did not support the conclusion that the statements in the email bore the alleged defamatory meanings, except possibly that the respondents were vexatious, irrational, and unreasonable, which is not necessarily defamatory in the context. The absence of pleaded facts fundamental to the alleged innuendo meant that the respondents could not rely on evidence to establish those facts at trial. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Citation
[2023] ZAGPJHC 1477
Parties
Applicant: Heather Finnaughty; Applicant: Candy Kasonkomona; Applicant: Charmaine Cogle; Respondent: Jean-Paul Malan; Respondent: Barbara Malan; Respondent: Vanessa Crichton; Respondent: Stuart Jordan; Respondent: Nikki Jordan; Respondent: Kumaran Pillay; Respondent: Natisha Pillay; Respondent: Peter Davison; Respondent: Yolande Davison; Respondent: David Dawson; Respondent: Michelle Dawson
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 December 2023
Case Number
22/15159
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim Heard and Decided
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs; plaintiffs granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 25 days, failing which particulars of claim are struck out.
Judges
S Yacoob
Legal Topics
Exception to Particulars of Claim, Defamation, Pleading Requirements, Innuendo, Cause of Action
Civil Procedure Delict Exception to Particulars of Claim Defamation Pleading Requirements Innuendo Cause of Action

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Heather Finnaughty

Applicant

Candy Kasonkomona

Applicant

Charmaine Cogle

Applicant

Jean-Paul Malan

Respondent

Barbara Malan

Respondent

Vanessa Crichton

Respondent

Stuart Jordan

Respondent

Nikki Jordan

Respondent

Kumaran Pillay

Respondent

Natisha Pillay

Respondent

Peter Davison

Respondent

Yolande Davison

Respondent

David Dawson

Respondent

Michelle Dawson

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim Heard and Decided

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the particulars of claim contain sufficient averments to sustain a cause of action for defamation based on innuendo.
  2. 2 Whether the background facts pleaded support the alleged defamatory innuendo.
  3. 3 Whether the statements in the email are capable of bearing the defamatory meanings attributed to them.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the particulars of claim did not contain sufficient averments to sustain the pleaded cause of action for defamation based on innuendo. The background facts pleaded did not support the conclusion that the statements in the email bore the alleged defamatory meanings, except possibly that the respondents were vexatious, irrational, and unreasonable, which is not necessarily defamatory in the context. The absence of pleaded facts fundamental to the alleged innuendo meant that the respondents could not rely on evidence to establish those facts at trial. Accordingly, the exception was upheld.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld with costs; plaintiffs granted leave to amend particulars of claim within 25 days, failing which particulars of claim are struck out.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiffs may amend their particulars of claim within 25 days from the date of this order.