Matsena v National Research Foundation and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 349; 51776/2020 (18 May 2023)

Matsena v National Research Foundation and Others [2023] ZAGPPHC 349; 51776/2020 (18 May 2023)

The court found that Adv. MacGregor Kufa was the instigator and author of defamatory and baseless allegations made in both the action and the urgent application, and that Machaba Attorneys aggravated the situation by refusing to withdraw or amend the offensive pleadings despite repeated warnings. The affidavits of Mr Matsena and Adv. Moropene confirmed Adv. Kufa's primary responsibility and malevolent conduct. Adv. Kufa failed to file an affidavit in opposition and did not substantively rebut the case for punitive costs. His arguments regarding recusal, public interest, and the SLAPP suit defence were found to be irrelevant or unsupported. The court held that the conduct of Adv. Kufa and...

Citation
[2023] ZAGPPHC 349
Parties
Applicant: Lawrence Matsena; Respondent: National Research Foundation; Respondent: Alexander Forbes; Respondent: National Research Foundation Provident and Pension Fund; Respondent: Pension Fund Board of Trustee; Respondent: Mr Bishen Singh; Respondent: Mr Kedirang Cagile; Respondent: Mr John Martin Hogg; Respondent: Dr Beverley Damonse; Respondent: Mr Johan Pauw; Respondent: Mr John Pilcher; Respondent: The Board of Directors of the NRF; Respondent: Dr Molapo Qobhela; Respondent: Dr Nompumelelo Obokoh; Respondent: Prof Haroon Bhorat; Respondent: Prof Glenda Gray; Respondent: Ms Claire Busetti; Respondent: Ms Mpho Letlape; Respondent: Mr Ronny Lubisi; Respondent: Prof Tinyiko Maluleke; Respondent: Prof Nomalanga Mkhize; Respondent: Prof Sarah Mosoetsa; Respondent: Dr Bongani Ngqulunga; Respondent: Prof Nadine Petersen; Respondent: Prof Saurabh Sinha; Respondent: Prof Zeblon Vilakazi; Respondent: Prof Refilwe Phaswana-Mfuya; Respondent: The Minister of Science and Innovation; Respondent: The Minister of Finance; Respondent: The National Prosecuting Authority; Respondent: The Financial Sector Conduct Authority
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
18 May 2023
Case Number
51776/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi for Confirmation or Discharge
Outcome
The rule nisi issued against Adv. MacGregor Kufa is confirmed. Adv. Kufa is ordered to pay the NRF Respondents' costs on an attorney and client scale, de bonis propriis, jointly and severally with the applicant and Machaba Attorneys.
Judges
Nyathi
Legal Topics
Costs De Bonis Propriis, Punitive Costs, Defamation in Pleadings, Professional Misconduct, Rule Nisi Confirmation
Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Costs De Bonis Propriis Punitive Costs Defamation in Pleadings Professional Misconduct Rule Nisi Confirmation

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 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Lawrence Matsena

Applicant

National Research Foundation

Respondent

Alexander Forbes

Respondent

National Research Foundation Provident and Pension Fund

Respondent

Pension Fund Board of Trustee

Respondent

Mr Bishen Singh

Respondent

Mr Kedirang Cagile

Respondent

Mr John Martin Hogg

Respondent

Dr Beverley Damonse

Respondent

Mr Johan Pauw

Respondent

Mr John Pilcher

Respondent

The Board of Directors of the NRF

Respondent

Dr Molapo Qobhela

Respondent

Dr Nompumelelo Obokoh

Respondent

Prof Haroon Bhorat

Respondent

Prof Glenda Gray

Respondent

Ms Claire Busetti

Respondent

Ms Mpho Letlape

Respondent

Mr Ronny Lubisi

Respondent

Prof Tinyiko Maluleke

Respondent

Prof Nomalanga Mkhize

Respondent

Prof Sarah Mosoetsa

Respondent

Dr Bongani Ngqulunga

Respondent

Prof Nadine Petersen

Respondent

Prof Saurabh Sinha

Respondent

Prof Zeblon Vilakazi

Respondent

Prof Refilwe Phaswana-Mfuya

Respondent

The Minister of Science and Innovation

Respondent

The Minister of Finance

Respondent

The National Prosecuting Authority

Respondent

The Financial Sector Conduct Authority

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Return Date of Rule Nisi for Confirmation or Discharge

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the rule nisi issued against Adv. MacGregor Kufa should be confirmed, resulting in a punitive costs order de bonis propriis.
  2. 2 Whether the conduct of Machaba Attorneys and Adv. Kufa justified a punitive costs order for their role in making and persisting with defamatory and baseless allegations.
  3. 3 Whether the SLAPP suit defence and public interest arguments advanced by Adv. Kufa are applicable to avoid a punitive costs order.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Adv. MacGregor Kufa was the instigator and author of defamatory and baseless allegations made in both the action and the urgent application, and that Machaba Attorneys aggravated the situation by refusing to withdraw or amend the offensive pleadings despite repeated warnings. The affidavits of Mr Matsena and Adv. Moropene confirmed Adv. Kufa's primary responsibility and malevolent conduct. Adv. Kufa failed to file an affidavit in opposition and did not substantively rebut the case for punitive costs. His arguments regarding recusal, public interest, and the SLAPP suit defence were found to be irrelevant or unsupported. The court held that the conduct of Adv. Kufa and...

Court Disposition

The rule nisi issued against Adv. MacGregor Kufa is confirmed. Adv. Kufa is ordered to pay the NRF Respondents' costs on an attorney and client scale, de bonis propriis, jointly and severally with the applicant and Machaba Attorneys.

Orders

  • The Rule Nisi issued on 27 July 2021 and extended on 9 September 2021 against Adv MacGregor Kufa is confirmed.
  • Adv Kufa is ordered to pay the costs of the NRF Respondents in connection with the application under case number 51776/2020 on the scale as between attorney and client, together with the costs of employing two counsel, de bonis propriis, jointly and severally with the Applicant and Machaba Attorneys.