Maliza v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (4086/2019) [2023] ZAECMHC 5; [2023] 4 BLLR 377 (ECM) (2 February 2023)

Maliza v G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd (4086/2019) [2023] ZAECMHC 5; [2023] 4 BLLR 377 (ECM) (2 February 2023)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the second defendant made the alleged defamatory statement. The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and not supported by his own witnesses. The documentary evidence and the testimony of the defendants indicated that concerns about the plaintiff's possible involvement in robberies were communicated as part of an investigation, not as a direct accusation or defamatory statement. The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof required in civil matters, and the probabilities favoured the defendants' version. Consequently, the claim for defamation was dismissed.

Citation
[2023] ZAECMHC 5
Parties
Plaintiff: Bongani Maliza; Defendant: G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd; Defendant: Kevin Govender
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
2 February 2023
Case Number
4086/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Rugunanan
Legal Topics
Defamation, Reputational Harm, Onus of Proof, Publication, Wrongfulness, Intention
Delict Defamation Reputational Harm Onus of Proof Publication Wrongfulness Intention

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 4 Authorities cited 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Bongani Maliza

Plaintiff

G4S Cash Solutions (Pty) Ltd

Defendant

Kevin Govender

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the second defendant made the alleged defamatory statement about the plaintiff during the conference call.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff discharged the onus of proof in establishing that the statement was made and was defamatory.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants rebutted the presumption of wrongfulness and intention if publication was proved.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the second defendant made the alleged defamatory statement. The plaintiff's evidence was inconsistent and not supported by his own witnesses. The documentary evidence and the testimony of the defendants indicated that concerns about the plaintiff's possible involvement in robberies were communicated as part of an investigation, not as a direct accusation or defamatory statement. The plaintiff did not discharge the onus of proof required in civil matters, and the probabilities favoured the defendants' version. Consequently, the claim for defamation was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's action is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the costs of the action.