Khuza and Another v Khanyiwe (5009/2018) [2025] ZAECMHC 15; [2025] 2 All SA 463 (ECM) (4 March 2025)

Khuza and Another v Khanyiwe (5009/2018) [2025] ZAECMHC 15; [2025] 2 All SA 463 (ECM) (4 March 2025)

The court found that the utterances made by the first appellant accusing the respondent of theft occurred in the context of an employment investigation into missing municipal refuse plastic bags. The first appellant was acting in his official capacity as superintendent, and the statements were made during meetings with supervisors and in the course of disciplinary proceedings. The court held that these circumstances constituted a qualified privileged occasion, negating any presumption of animus iniuriandi. The respondent pleaded guilty to gross dishonesty in the disciplinary process, further undermining her credibility and claim of false accusation. The court a quo erred in failing to...

Citation
[2025] ZAECMHC 15
Parties
Appellant: Lungisa Khuza; Appellant: King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality; Respondent: Nontandabuza Khanyiwe
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
4 March 2025
Case Number
5009/2018
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo
Outcome
Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
M.S. Jolwana, G.N.Z. Mjali, L. Rusi
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Employment Misconduct, Animus Iniuriandi, Damages, Disciplinary Proceedings
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Qualified Privilege Employment Misconduct Animus Iniuriandi Damages Disciplinary Proceedings

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

Parties

Lungisa Khuza

Appellant

King Sabata Dalindyebo Municipality

Appellant

Nontandabuza Khanyiwe

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Judgment of Court a Quo

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the utterances made by the first appellant accusing the respondent of theft were defamatory, wrongful and unlawful.
  2. 2 Whether the occasion on which the utterances were made constituted a qualified privileged occasion negating animus iniuriandi.
  3. 3 Whether the respondent established publication of the defamatory statements to third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the utterances made by the first appellant accusing the respondent of theft occurred in the context of an employment investigation into missing municipal refuse plastic bags. The first appellant was acting in his official capacity as superintendent, and the statements were made during meetings with supervisors and in the course of disciplinary proceedings. The court held that these circumstances constituted a qualified privileged occasion, negating any presumption of animus iniuriandi. The respondent pleaded guilty to gross dishonesty in the disciplinary process, further undermining her credibility and claim of false accusation. The court a quo erred in failing to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; respondent's claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim against the defendants with costs on scale A referred to in rule 67A of the Uniform Rules of Court.