Media 24 Limited t.a Daily Sun and Another v Du Plessis (127/2016) [2017] ZASCA 33 (29 March 2017)

Media 24 Limited t.a Daily Sun and Another v Du Plessis (127/2016) [2017] ZASCA 33 (29 March 2017)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the article published by the appellants was not substantially true and contained several material inaccuracies that contributed to its defamatory sting. The appellants failed to verify the information provided by their sources and did not take reasonable steps to ensure...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2017] ZASCA 33
Parties
Appellant: Media 24 Limited t/a Daily Sun; Appellant: Themba Khumalo; Respondent: Bekker du Plessis
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 March 2017
Case Number
127/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part; damages reduced; each party to pay own costs of appeal.
Judges
Cachalia, Petse, Swain, Mbha, Gorven
Legal Topics
Defamation, Media Privilege, Reasonable Publication, Damages Assessment, Truth and Public Interest
Delict Telecoms and Media Defamation Media Privilege Reasonable Publication Damages Assessment Truth and Public Interest

Source-derived case record

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

Parties

Media 24 Limited t/a Daily Sun

Appellant

Themba Khumalo

Appellant

Bekker du Plessis

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Gauteng Division of the High Court, Pretoria

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the article published by the appellants was substantially true and in the public interest.
  2. 2 Whether the publication of the article was reasonable in all the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the award of damages of R80 000 was excessive given the harm caused to the respondent.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the article published by the appellants was not substantially true and contained several material inaccuracies that contributed to its defamatory sting. The appellants failed to verify the information provided by their sources and did not take reasonable steps to ensure accuracy, prioritizing speed of publication over journalistic diligence. The defence of truth and public interest was rejected as the article was not substantially true, and the defence of media privilege was also dismissed due to the lack of reasonable verification. The award of damages by the High Court was found to be excessive, considering the respondent's own conduct and the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part; damages reduced; each party to pay own costs of appeal.

Orders

  • Judgment for the plaintiff against the first and second defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, in the sum of R40 000 and costs of suit.
  • Each of the parties shall pay their own costs of appeal.