Kolver v RCP Media and Others (41518/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 113 (20 June 2007)

Kolver v RCP Media and Others (41518/06) [2007] ZAGPHC 113 (20 June 2007)

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim against the fourth defendant lack the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action for defamation. Specifically, the particulars do not allege the act of publication by the fourth defendant, the person to whom publication was made, or that the statements were made with the requisite intention to injure the plaintiff's reputation. The absence of these facta probanda means the claim cannot succeed against the fourth defendant. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a common intention among the defendants or contextual inference suffices, emphasizing the need for precise allegations when suing an individual defendant.

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 113
Parties
Plaintiff: Daniel Gerhardus Kolver; Defendant: RCP Media; Defendant: Media 24 Beperk; Defendant: Johan Eybers; Defendant: Mark Gory
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 June 2007
Case Number
41518/06
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld; particulars of claim against the fourth defendant set aside; leave granted to amend.
Judges
Murphy
Legal Topics
Defamation, Pleadings Requirements, Publication, Animus Injurandi
Civil Procedure Delict Defamation Pleadings Requirements Publication Animus Injurandi

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 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Daniel Gerhardus Kolver

Plaintiff

RCP Media

Defendant

Media 24 Beperk

Defendant

Johan Eybers

Defendant

Mark Gory

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action against the fourth defendant.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars sufficiently allege publication and intention to injure by the fourth defendant.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's particulars of claim against the fourth defendant lack the necessary averments to sustain a cause of action for defamation. Specifically, the particulars do not allege the act of publication by the fourth defendant, the person to whom publication was made, or that the statements were made with the requisite intention to injure the plaintiff's reputation. The absence of these facta probanda means the claim cannot succeed against the fourth defendant. The court rejected the plaintiff's argument that a common intention among the defendants or contextual inference suffices, emphasizing the need for precise allegations when suing an individual defendant.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld; particulars of claim against the fourth defendant set aside; leave granted to amend.

Orders

  • The exception to the plaintiff's particulars of claim by the fourth defendant is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff's particulars of claim against the fourth defendant are set aside.