Matzner and Others v Smith and Another (183/2011) [2013] ZAECPEHC 17 (28 March 2013)

Matzner and Others v Smith and Another (183/2011) [2013] ZAECPEHC 17 (28 March 2013)

Applying the principles from Le Roux v Dey, the court found that the statements in the defendants' letter, when interpreted by a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence, were capable of conveying that the plaintiffs were dishonest, disregarded proper processes, and endangered the interests of tenants. The publication thus had the tendency to undermine the plaintiffs' status, good name, and reputation. The court was satisfied that the plaintiffs' feelings and dignity were injured, entitling them to damages. Regarding quantum, the court considered relevant factors and comparable awards, concluding that R10,000 per plaintiff was appropriate. Costs were awarded on the magistrate's court...

Citation
[2013] ZAECPEHC 17
Parties
Plaintiff: Robert Matzner; Plaintiff: Ray De Wet; Plaintiff: Beryl De Wet; Defendant: Erol Smith; Defendant: Jackie Smith
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 March 2013
Case Number
183/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Damages Claim for Defamation; Application for Dismissal of Defence and Judgment After Non Compliance With Court Order for Particulars
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendants ordered to pay damages and costs.
Judges
N G Beshe
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages Quantum, Reputation Injury, Fiduciary Duties of Trustees
Delict Defamation Damages Quantum Reputation Injury Fiduciary Duties of Trustees

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

Parties

Robert Matzner

Plaintiff

Ray De Wet

Plaintiff

Beryl De Wet

Plaintiff

Erol Smith

Defendant

Jackie Smith

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Damages Claim for Defamation; Application for Dismissal of Defence and Judgment After Non Compliance With Court Order for Particulars

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the letter published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the publication injured the plaintiffs' reputation and dignity.
  3. 3 What quantum of damages is appropriate for the harm suffered.

Ratio Decidendi

Applying the principles from Le Roux v Dey, the court found that the statements in the defendants' letter, when interpreted by a reasonable person of ordinary intelligence, were capable of conveying that the plaintiffs were dishonest, disregarded proper processes, and endangered the interests of tenants. The publication thus had the tendency to undermine the plaintiffs' status, good name, and reputation. The court was satisfied that the plaintiffs' feelings and dignity were injured, entitling them to damages. Regarding quantum, the court considered relevant factors and comparable awards, concluding that R10,000 per plaintiff was appropriate. Costs were awarded on the magistrate's court...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs. Defendants ordered to pay damages and costs.

Orders

  • Defendants are ordered to pay each of the three plaintiffs an amount of R10,000 as damages, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • Plaintiffs are awarded costs on the scale applicable in the Magistrates' Courts.