Gouws v De Lange and Another (2842/14, 3449/14, 3450/14) [2014] ZAECPEHC 89 (11 December 2014)

Gouws v De Lange and Another (2842/14, 3449/14, 3450/14) [2014] ZAECPEHC 89 (11 December 2014)

The court found the applicant's version of events more credible, supported by video evidence and medical reports, establishing that the respondent engaged in a campaign of harassment, defamation, and physical assault. The respondent's denials were implausible and contradicted by objective evidence. The respondent's conduct infringed the applicant's constitutional rights to dignity and security of the person, going beyond protected freedom of expression. The respondent's damages applications were dismissed for lack of factual basis and procedural irregularity, as such claims must be brought by action, not application. The applicant was granted a final interdict, with the terms amended to...

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 89
Parties
Applicant: Jacques Gouws; Respondent: Craig Todd De Lange; Respondent: Carel Du Preez
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 December 2014
Case Number
2842/14, 3449/14, 3450/14
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Interdict and Consolidated Damages Applications
Outcome
Final interdict granted in favour of the applicant; respondent's damages applications dismissed with costs.
Judges
Revelas
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Defamation, Harassment, Assault, Costs Award
Civil Procedure Delict Final Interdict Defamation Harassment Assault Costs Award

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jacques Gouws

Applicant

Craig Todd De Lange

Respondent

Carel Du Preez

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Interdict and Consolidated Damages Applications

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant is entitled to a final interdict against the respondent for harassment, defamation, and assault.
  2. 2 Whether the respondent's consolidated damages applications disclose a cause of action and are procedurally valid.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent's conduct infringed the applicant's constitutional rights to dignity and security of the person.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found the applicant's version of events more credible, supported by video evidence and medical reports, establishing that the respondent engaged in a campaign of harassment, defamation, and physical assault. The respondent's denials were implausible and contradicted by objective evidence. The respondent's conduct infringed the applicant's constitutional rights to dignity and security of the person, going beyond protected freedom of expression. The respondent's damages applications were dismissed for lack of factual basis and procedural irregularity, as such claims must be brought by action, not application. The applicant was granted a final interdict, with the terms amended to...

Court Disposition

Final interdict granted in favour of the applicant; respondent's damages applications dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The respondent is prohibited from writing to or communicating with the applicant in any manner whatsoever, save through an attorney.
  • The respondent is prohibited from writing to or communicating with any other person about, or in connection with, the applicant, save through an attorney.