Le Roux and Others v Dey (44/2009) [2010] ZASCA 41; 2010 (4) SA 210 (SCA) ; [2010] 3 All SA 497 (SCA) (30 March 2010)

Le Roux and Others v Dey (44/2009) [2010] ZASCA 41; 2010 (4) SA 210 (SCA) ; [2010] 3 All SA 497 (SCA) (30 March 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the manipulated photograph was objectively defamatory and wrongful, as it ridiculed the respondent's moral values and dignity in a derogatory manner. The defendants' argument that the image was a joke did not exclude liability, since the joke was degrading and intended to ridicule the respondent. The court found that animus iniuriandi does not require consciousness of wrongfulness, and the defendants' intent to ridicule sufficed for liability. The court further held that there is only one cause of action for the defamatory act, and the additional claim for impairment of dignity was ill-founded. Regarding quantum, the court found that the trial court...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 41
Parties
Appellant: Hendrik Pieter Le Roux; Appellant: Burgert Christiaan Gildenhuys; Appellant: Reinardt Janse van Rensburg; Respondent: Louis Dey
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 March 2010
Case Number
44/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; order of the court below amended to reflect costs on the high court scale and costs of two counsel.
Judges
Harms, Mlambo, Malan, Griesel, Majiedt
Legal Topics
Defamation, Actio Iniuriarum, Animus Iniuriandi, Quantum of Damages, Wrongfulness, Dignity Rights
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Actio Iniuriarum Animus Iniuriandi Quantum of Damages Wrongfulness Dignity Rights

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 5 Authorities cited 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hendrik Pieter Le Roux

Appellant

Burgert Christiaan Gildenhuys

Appellant

Reinardt Janse van Rensburg

Appellant

Louis Dey

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North Gauteng High Court (pretoria)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the publication of the manipulated photograph was wrongful and defamatory.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants possessed the requisite animus iniuriandi (intention to injure).
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff was entitled to damages for both defamation and impairment of dignity as separate causes of action.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the manipulated photograph was objectively defamatory and wrongful, as it ridiculed the respondent's moral values and dignity in a derogatory manner. The defendants' argument that the image was a joke did not exclude liability, since the joke was degrading and intended to ridicule the respondent. The court found that animus iniuriandi does not require consciousness of wrongfulness, and the defendants' intent to ridicule sufficed for liability. The court further held that there is only one cause of action for the defamatory act, and the additional claim for impairment of dignity was ill-founded. Regarding quantum, the court found that the trial court...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs; cross-appeal upheld with costs; order of the court below amended to reflect costs on the high court scale and costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The cross-appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.