Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (437/2010) [2011] ZASCA 117; 2011 (5) SA 329 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 9 (SCA) (5 July 2011)

Media 24 Ltd and Others v SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd (437/2010) [2011] ZASCA 117; 2011 (5) SA 329 (SCA); [2011] 4 All SA 9 (SCA) (5 July 2011)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a trading corporation has a right to claim general damages for defamation under the actio iniuriarum, as established by longstanding precedent. The court affirmed that corporations possess a protectable interest in their reputation, which is recognized by both common law and the Constitution. However, claims for special damages, such as loss of profits, must satisfy the requirements of the Aquilian action, including proof of wrongfulness, fault, causation, and patrimonial loss. The respondent's pleadings lacked an essential averment of the falsity of the defamatory statements, rendering its special damages claim defective. The court rejected arguments...

Citation
[2011] ZASCA 117
Parties
Appellant: Media 24 Limited; Appellant: Kathu Mamaila; Appellant: Jackie Mapiloko; Respondent: SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd; Amicus Curiae: Avusa Media Ltd; Amicus Curiae: BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd; Amicus Curiae: Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd; Amicus Curiae: Freedom of Expression Institute
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
5 July 2011
Case Number
437/2010
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Outcome
Appeal upheld in part. The respondent's claim for special damages is dismissed; its claim for general damages may proceed.
Judges
Brand, Nugent, Maya, Snyders, Theron
Legal Topics
Defamation, Corporate Reputation, General Damages, Special Damages, Freedom of Expression, Constitutional Limitation
Delict Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Defamation Corporate Reputation General Damages Special Damages Freedom of Expression +1 more

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 22 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Media 24 Limited

Appellant

Kathu Mamaila

Appellant

Jackie Mapiloko

Appellant

SA Taxi Securitisation (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Avusa Media Ltd

Amicus Curiae

BDFM Publishers (Pty) Ltd

Amicus Curiae

Independent Newspapers (Pty) Ltd

Amicus Curiae

Freedom of Expression Institute

Amicus Curiae

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether a trading corporation may claim general damages for defamation under the actio iniuriarum.
  2. 2 Whether a corporation's claim for special damages for defamation must satisfy the requirements of the Aquilian action.
  3. 3 Whether the extension of defamation remedies to corporations constitutes an unjustified limitation on freedom of expression under the Constitution.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that a trading corporation has a right to claim general damages for defamation under the actio iniuriarum, as established by longstanding precedent. The court affirmed that corporations possess a protectable interest in their reputation, which is recognized by both common law and the Constitution. However, claims for special damages, such as loss of profits, must satisfy the requirements of the Aquilian action, including proof of wrongfulness, fault, causation, and patrimonial loss. The respondent's pleadings lacked an essential averment of the falsity of the defamatory statements, rendering its special damages claim defective. The court rejected arguments...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in part. The respondent's claim for special damages is dismissed; its claim for general damages may proceed.

Orders

  • The appeal is upheld with costs, including the costs of two counsel.
  • The order of the court a quo is set aside and replaced with the following: (a) The defendants' special plea with reference to the plaintiff's claim for general damages is dismissed. (b) Save for para (a) above, the defendants' special plea is upheld. (c) The plaintiff's claim for special damages is dismissed. (d)...