Media 24 (Pty) Ltd v Nhleko and Another (109/22) [2023] ZASCA 77 (29 May 2023)

Media 24 (Pty) Ltd v Nhleko and Another (109/22) [2023] ZASCA 77 (29 May 2023)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the high court misunderstood the requirements for a defendant's plea in a defamation action. Media 24 was not obliged to justify every statement in the article, but only those alleged to be defamatory in the particulars of claim. The amended plea provided sufficient detail and admissions where appropriate, and a bare denial was permissible for irrelevant allegations. The high court's focus on the media's role in society and its expectation of public justification was misplaced and not supported by law. The refusal to allow the amendment was based on incorrect principles and deprived Media 24 of the opportunity to advance its defence. The order was...

Citation
[2023] ZASCA 77
Parties
Appellant: Media 24 (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Nkosinathi Nhleko; Respondent: Dr Noncebo Mthembu
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
29 May 2023
Case Number
109/22
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town
Outcome
Appeal upheld; high court order set aside and replaced.
Judges
Nicholls, Gorven, Hughes, Goosen, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Pleadings Amendment, Bare Denial, Defamation Defence, Costs Punitive, Reasonable Publication
Civil Procedure Pleadings Amendment Bare Denial Defamation Defence Costs Punitive Reasonable Publication

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 4 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Media 24 (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Nkosinathi Nhleko

Respondent

Dr Noncebo Mthembu

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the high court erred in dismissing the application to amend the plea based on incorrect legal principles.
  2. 2 Whether a defendant in a defamation action is required to justify all statements in the article or only those alleged to be defamatory.
  3. 3 Whether a bare denial in the plea is permissible in the circumstances.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the high court misunderstood the requirements for a defendant's plea in a defamation action. Media 24 was not obliged to justify every statement in the article, but only those alleged to be defamatory in the particulars of claim. The amended plea provided sufficient detail and admissions where appropriate, and a bare denial was permissible for irrelevant allegations. The high court's focus on the media's role in society and its expectation of public justification was misplaced and not supported by law. The refusal to allow the amendment was based on incorrect principles and deprived Media 24 of the opportunity to advance its defence. The order was...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; high court order set aside and replaced.

Orders

  • The applicant is granted leave to amend its plea within ten days of this order.
  • The respondents are liable to pay the costs on an attorney client scale.