Gishen v Babu (2005/6018) [2007] ZAGPHC 391 (1 November 2007)

Gishen v Babu (2005/6018) [2007] ZAGPHC 391 (1 November 2007)

The court found that the statements made by the defendant to the Law Society were defamatory of the plaintiff, imputing improper, unprofessional, unethical, and dishonest conduct. The defendant failed to establish the truth of the alleged arrangement between Ms Babu and the plaintiff, and the evidence refuted the claim that the plaintiff deceived the court. The defence of truth in the public benefit was rejected. Although the occasion of the complaint was privileged, the privilege was qualified and lost due to malice, as the defendant either knew the statements were untrue or did not believe them to be true. The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff, Ms Babu, and Standard Bank...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 391
Parties
Plaintiff: Martin Charles Gishen; Defendant: Naresh Babu
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 November 2007
Case Number
2005/6018
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / First Instance
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for defamation.
Judges
P.A. Meyer
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Damages Assessment, Professional Ethics
Delict Defamation Qualified Privilege Malice Damages Assessment Professional Ethics

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

Parties

Martin Charles Gishen

Plaintiff

Naresh Babu

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / First Instance

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the defendant to the Law Society were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defences of truth in the public benefit and qualified privilege were established by the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the statements were actuated by malice.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by the defendant to the Law Society were defamatory of the plaintiff, imputing improper, unprofessional, unethical, and dishonest conduct. The defendant failed to establish the truth of the alleged arrangement between Ms Babu and the plaintiff, and the evidence refuted the claim that the plaintiff deceived the court. The defence of truth in the public benefit was rejected. Although the occasion of the complaint was privileged, the privilege was qualified and lost due to malice, as the defendant either knew the statements were untrue or did not believe them to be true. The court accepted the evidence of the plaintiff, Ms Babu, and Standard Bank...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; defendant held liable for defamation.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff the sum of R35,000.00.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the costs of suit.