Isparta v Richter and Another (22452/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 243; 2013 (6) SA 529 (GNP) (4 September 2013)

Isparta v Richter and Another (22452/12) [2013] ZAGPPHC 243; 2013 (6) SA 529 (GNP) (4 September 2013)

The court found that both Facebook postings were defamatory of the plaintiff. The first posting, though not serious defamation, was gratuitous and intended to place the plaintiff in a bad light. The second posting was scandalous, suggesting the plaintiff tolerated sexual deviation, which compounded the damage to her reputation. The postings, taken together and in context, were clearly understood by the relevant audience to refer to the plaintiff, even if not always named. The second defendant, though not the author, was tagged and allowed his name to be coupled with the first defendant, making him equally liable. The defendants did not apologise or retract their statements, and continued...

Citation
[2013] ZAGPPHC 243
Parties
Plaintiff: Isparta; Defendant: Richter; Defendant: Oosthuizen
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 September 2013
Case Number
22452/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff; damages and costs awarded against both defendants jointly and severally.
Judges
J Hiemstra
Legal Topics
Defamation, Social Media Liability, Publication, Identification of Plaintiff, Damages for Defamation
Delict Defamation Social Media Liability Publication Identification of Plaintiff Damages for Defamation

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

Parties

Isparta

Plaintiff

Richter

Defendant

Oosthuizen

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Facebook postings made by the first defendant, and tagged to the second defendant, are defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the postings refer to the plaintiff, either directly or by implication.
  3. 3 Whether a question posed on social media can constitute defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that both Facebook postings were defamatory of the plaintiff. The first posting, though not serious defamation, was gratuitous and intended to place the plaintiff in a bad light. The second posting was scandalous, suggesting the plaintiff tolerated sexual deviation, which compounded the damage to her reputation. The postings, taken together and in context, were clearly understood by the relevant audience to refer to the plaintiff, even if not always named. The second defendant, though not the author, was tagged and allowed his name to be coupled with the first defendant, making him equally liable. The defendants did not apologise or retract their statements, and continued...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff; damages and costs awarded against both defendants jointly and severally.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, in the sum of R40,000.
  • The defendants are ordered, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the plaintiff’s costs on the appropriate magistrates court scale, including the costs of counsel.