Kleynhans v Read (5693/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 335 (31 August 2009)

Kleynhans v Read (5693/07) [2009] ZAGPPHC 335 (31 August 2009)

The court found that the words spoken by the defendant, although crude and offensive, were not defamatory in their primary sense nor did they bear the innuendo pleaded by the plaintiff. The context indicated that any racialism arose from the defendant's own prejudices, not from the plaintiff. The words did not lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking people and were not actionable as defamation or injuria. The plaintiff's claim for damages for the vehicle was upheld, as he was liable to restore the borrowed car and the defendant admitted causing the damage. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed as fanciful and unsupported by evidence. Costs were awarded to the...

Citation
[2009] ZAGPPHC 335
Parties
Plaintiff: John Paul Kleynhans; Defendant: Brian Read
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 August 2009
Case Number
5693/07
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's main and alternative claims for defamation and injuria are dismissed. Plaintiff succeeds on the claim for damages to the vehicle. Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed. Costs awarded to plaintiff.
Judges
Sapire AJ
Legal Topics
Defamation, Injuria, Damages for Property, Counterclaim, Costs Award
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Injuria Damages for Property Counterclaim Costs Award

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

Parties

John Paul Kleynhans

Plaintiff

Brian Read

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words spoken by the defendant were defamatory or injurious to the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for defamation or injuria.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for the vehicle door incident.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the words spoken by the defendant, although crude and offensive, were not defamatory in their primary sense nor did they bear the innuendo pleaded by the plaintiff. The context indicated that any racialism arose from the defendant's own prejudices, not from the plaintiff. The words did not lower the plaintiff in the estimation of right-thinking people and were not actionable as defamation or injuria. The plaintiff's claim for damages for the vehicle was upheld, as he was liable to restore the borrowed car and the defendant admitted causing the damage. The defendant's counterclaim was dismissed as fanciful and unsupported by evidence. Costs were awarded to the...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's main and alternative claims for defamation and injuria are dismissed. Plaintiff succeeds on the claim for damages to the vehicle. Defendant's counterclaim is dismissed. Costs awarded to plaintiff.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim 1 is dismissed.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R2508 for damage to the vehicle.