Ivo dos Santos v Coetzee (29990//2013) [2019] ZAGPJHC 67 (12 February 2019)

Ivo dos Santos v Coetzee (29990//2013) [2019] ZAGPJHC 67 (12 February 2019)

The court found that while the statements in the defendant's email were critical of the plaintiff, they constituted fair comment based on facts that were substantially true and already in the domain of the shareholders. The plaintiff conceded under cross-examination that his grammar was poor and that the defendant was entitled to his opinion. The plaintiff failed to plead or prove any special circumstances or facts that would give rise to a defamatory innuendo or secondary meaning. The court held that the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proving defamation or impairment of dignity on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPJHC 67
Parties
Plaintiff: Ivo dos Santos Castelo Branco; Defendant: Coetzee Stuart Colin
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
12 February 2019
Case Number
29990//2013
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
M Matsemela
Legal Topics
Defamation, Dignity Impairment, Fair Comment, Innuendo, Burden of Proof
Delict Defamation Dignity Impairment Fair Comment Innuendo Burden of Proof

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

Parties

Ivo dos Santos Castelo Branco

Plaintiff

Coetzee Stuart Colin

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the email sent by the defendant to shareholders was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the statements in the email impaired the plaintiff's dignity.
  3. 3 Whether the defence of fair comment applies to the defendant's publication.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that while the statements in the defendant's email were critical of the plaintiff, they constituted fair comment based on facts that were substantially true and already in the domain of the shareholders. The plaintiff conceded under cross-examination that his grammar was poor and that the defendant was entitled to his opinion. The plaintiff failed to plead or prove any special circumstances or facts that would give rise to a defamatory innuendo or secondary meaning. The court held that the plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proving defamation or impairment of dignity on a balance of probabilities. Accordingly, the claim was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is liable to pay the costs of the action, including the costs reserved on 2 November 2016.