Maluleke v Johnnic Communications Ltd and Others (8933/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 262 (18 October 2006)

Maluleke v Johnnic Communications Ltd and Others (8933/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 262 (18 October 2006)

The court found that the plaintiff was bound by the specific defamatory meanings pleaded in his particulars of claim. The selected statements from the article, when read in context, did not bear the imputation that the plaintiff is dishonest, a thief, or a criminal who commits robbery. The reasonable reader would have understood the article to report that the plaintiff was arrested, detained, and charged as a suspect in connection with possession of a suspected stolen vehicle, not that he was guilty of theft or robbery. The plaintiff failed to establish that the selected statements bore the pleaded defamatory meanings. As he did not plead the meanings as alternatives to a general...

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 262
Parties
Plaintiff: Elias Maluleke; Defendant: Johnnic Communications Limited; Defendant: Thabo Leshilo; Defendant: Matshube Mfoloe
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 October 2006
Case Number
8933/05
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Absolution from the instance was granted against the plaintiff, with costs awarded to the defendants.
Judges
PA Meyer
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages, Media Publication, Absolution From Instance
Delict Defamation Damages Media Publication Absolution From Instance

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

Parties

Elias Maluleke

Plaintiff

Johnnic Communications Limited

Defendant

Thabo Leshilo

Defendant

Matshube Mfoloe

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements published in the Sowetan newspaper are defamatory of the plaintiff in the meanings pleaded.
  2. 2 Whether the selected statements bear the imputation that the plaintiff is dishonest, a thief, or a criminal who commits robbery.
  3. 3 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages for defamation based on the pleaded meanings.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff was bound by the specific defamatory meanings pleaded in his particulars of claim. The selected statements from the article, when read in context, did not bear the imputation that the plaintiff is dishonest, a thief, or a criminal who commits robbery. The reasonable reader would have understood the article to report that the plaintiff was arrested, detained, and charged as a suspect in connection with possession of a suspected stolen vehicle, not that he was guilty of theft or robbery. The plaintiff failed to establish that the selected statements bore the pleaded defamatory meanings. As he did not plead the meanings as alternatives to a general...

Court Disposition

Absolution from the instance was granted against the plaintiff, with costs awarded to the defendants.

Orders

  • Absolution from the instance is granted against the plaintiff.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to pay the defendants' costs of this action.