Jansen v Naylor and Another (21292/00) [2003] ZAGPHC 14 (28 October 2003)

Jansen v Naylor and Another (21292/00) [2003] ZAGPHC 14 (28 October 2003)

The court held that the defendants cannot both deny having made the defamatory statement and simultaneously plead justification for it. Such inconsistent pleadings are impermissible. The allegations regarding the plaintiff's involvement with JFP Chemicals CC, alleged conflicts of interest, and payments in breach of company procedures are not relevant to the issues being tried, as the defendants have denied making the statement in question. Accordingly, cross-examination on these matters is disallowed.

Citation
[2003] ZAGPHC 14
Parties
Plaintiff: Pieter Johan Jansen; Defendant: Michael Naylor; Defendant: Atomaer (RSA) Pty Ltd
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 October 2003
Case Number
21292/00
Procedural Posture
Civil Procedure / Ruling on Admissibility of Cross Examination During Trial
Outcome
Cross-examination of the plaintiff on issues relating to JFP Chemicals CC, alleged conflicts of interest, and payments in breach of company procedures is disallowed.
Judges
Willis
Legal Topics
Cross Examination, Pleadings, Defamation, Mitigation of Damages
Civil Procedure Cross Examination Pleadings Defamation Mitigation of Damages

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

Pieter Johan Jansen

Plaintiff

Michael Naylor

Defendant

Atomaer (RSA) Pty Ltd

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Procedure / Ruling on Admissibility of Cross Examination During Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendants may cross-examine the plaintiff regarding alleged payments to JFP Chemicals CC and possible conflicts of interest.
  2. 2 Whether such cross-examination is relevant to the issues being tried, given the pleadings and denials.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants' plea allows them to rely on justification and mitigation of damages while denying the utterance of the defamatory statement.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the defendants cannot both deny having made the defamatory statement and simultaneously plead justification for it. Such inconsistent pleadings are impermissible. The allegations regarding the plaintiff's involvement with JFP Chemicals CC, alleged conflicts of interest, and payments in breach of company procedures are not relevant to the issues being tried, as the defendants have denied making the statement in question. Accordingly, cross-examination on these matters is disallowed.

Court Disposition

Cross-examination of the plaintiff on issues relating to JFP Chemicals CC, alleged conflicts of interest, and payments in breach of company procedures is disallowed.

Orders

  • Cross-examination on the plaintiff's alleged interest in JFP Chemicals CC, payments made, and conflict of interest is disallowed.