Joubert and Others v Venter (159/84) [1984] ZASCA 162; [1985] 1 All SA 443 (A) (30 November 1984)

Joubert and Others v Venter (159/84) [1984] ZASCA 162; [1985] 1 All SA 443 (A) (30 November 1984)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defamatory statements made by the appellants in affidavits during judicial proceedings were relevant and germane to the issues at hand, specifically the appointment of a receiver and the suitability of the respondent for that role. The Court found that the appellants had a factual foundation for their allegations, based on consultations, affidavits, and accounting evidence, and that they acted on legal and accounting advice in good faith. The respondent failed to prove malice, lack of reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the statements, or absence of foundation. The privilege was not forfeited, and the statements were protected. The...

Citation
[1984] ZASCA 162
Parties
Appellant: Phillippus Petrus Joubert; Appellant: Carolina Trekkers & Implements (Edms) Bpk; Appellant: Emata Motors (Pty) Ltd; Appellant: Raoul Karl Richard Zeiss; Appellant: Jacobus Johannes Uys; Appellant: Lionel Laubschber; Respondent: Gert Hendrik Jacobus Venter
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 November 1984
Case Number
159/84
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Division
Outcome
Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendants (appellants) with costs, including costs of two counsel for specified appellants.
Judges
Kotzé, Hoexter, Botha, Hefer, Vivier
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Onus of Proof, Relevance of Statements, Liability of Witnesses
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Qualified Privilege Malice Onus of Proof Relevance of Statements Liability of Witnesses

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 3 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Phillippus Petrus Joubert

Appellant

Carolina Trekkers & Implements (Edms) Bpk

Appellant

Emata Motors (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Raoul Karl Richard Zeiss

Appellant

Jacobus Johannes Uys

Appellant

Lionel Laubschber

Appellant

Gert Hendrik Jacobus Venter

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of the Transvaal Provincial Division

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether defamatory statements made in affidavits during judicial proceedings are protected by qualified privilege.
  2. 2 Whether the appellants had reasonable grounds for believing the truth of the statements made against the respondent.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent proved malice or lack of foundation sufficient to defeat the privilege.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the defamatory statements made by the appellants in affidavits during judicial proceedings were relevant and germane to the issues at hand, specifically the appointment of a receiver and the suitability of the respondent for that role. The Court found that the appellants had a factual foundation for their allegations, based on consultations, affidavits, and accounting evidence, and that they acted on legal and accounting advice in good faith. The respondent failed to prove malice, lack of reasonable grounds for belief in the truth of the statements, or absence of foundation. The privilege was not forfeited, and the statements were protected. The...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed; judgment for the defendants (appellants) with costs, including costs of two counsel for specified appellants.

Orders

  • The appeals are allowed with costs, including in the case of the first, second, third, fifth and sixth appellants, the costs of two counsel.
  • The judgment of the trial Court is altered to one of judgment for the defendants with costs, including in the case of first, second, third, fifth and sixth defendants, the costs of two counsel.