Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others (CCT 66/21) [2022] ZACC 37; 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC); 2023 (7) BCLR 779 (CC) (14 November 2022)

Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd and Others v Reddell and Others (CCT 66/21) [2022] ZACC 37; 2023 (2) SA 68 (CC); 2023 (7) BCLR 779 (CC) (14 November 2022)

The Constitutional Court held that South African common law, through the doctrine of abuse of process, accommodates a SLAPP suit defence. However, the defence cannot be based solely on ulterior motive; both the merits of the claim and the motive for bringing it must be considered. The respondents' special plea, which relied exclusively on motive, lacked the necessary averments to sustain a defence and was excipiable. The Court found that the SLAPP suit defence forms part of South African law, but its proper application requires a nuanced approach that considers whether the litigation is brought to vindicate a right or to silence critics and undermine constitutional rights such as freedom...

Citation
[2022] ZACC 37
Parties
Applicant: Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd; Applicant: Mineral Commodities Limited; Applicant: Zamile Qunya; Applicant: Mark Victor Caruso; Respondent: Christine Reddell; Respondent: Tracey Davies; Respondent: Davine Cloete; Respondent: Mzamo Dlamini; Respondent: Cormac Cullinan; Respondent: John Gerard Ingram Clarke; Applicant: Centre for Applied Legal Studies; Applicant: Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network
Court
Constitutional Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 November 2022
Case Number
CCT 66/21
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Direct Appeal From the High Court; Exception to Special Plea
Outcome
Appeal upheld; exception to the first special plea sustained; respondents granted leave to amend special plea.
Judges
Kollapen, Madlanga, Majiedt, Mathopo, Mhlantla, Mlambo, Theron, Tshiqi, Unterhalter
Legal Topics
Abuse of Process, Slapp Suit Defence, Freedom of Expression, Access to Courts, Defamation, Public Participation
Civil Procedure Constitutional Law Environmental Law Abuse of Process Slapp Suit Defence Freedom of Expression Access to Courts Defamation +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 13 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mineral Sands Resources (Pty) Ltd

Applicant

Mineral Commodities Limited

Applicant

Zamile Qunya

Applicant

Mark Victor Caruso

Applicant

Christine Reddell

Respondent

Tracey Davies

Respondent

Davine Cloete

Respondent

Mzamo Dlamini

Respondent

Cormac Cullinan

Respondent

John Gerard Ingram Clarke

Respondent

Centre for Applied Legal Studies

Applicant

Southern Africa Human Rights Defenders Network

Applicant

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Direct Appeal From the High Court; Exception to Special Plea

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Does South African law recognise a SLAPP suit defence under the abuse of process doctrine.
  2. 2 Can ulterior motive alone, without regard to the merits, justify dismissal of a claim as an abuse of process.
  3. 3 Should the common law be developed to accommodate SLAPP suit defences.

Ratio Decidendi

The Constitutional Court held that South African common law, through the doctrine of abuse of process, accommodates a SLAPP suit defence. However, the defence cannot be based solely on ulterior motive; both the merits of the claim and the motive for bringing it must be considered. The respondents' special plea, which relied exclusively on motive, lacked the necessary averments to sustain a defence and was excipiable. The Court found that the SLAPP suit defence forms part of South African law, but its proper application requires a nuanced approach that considers whether the litigation is brought to vindicate a right or to silence critics and undermine constitutional rights such as freedom...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; exception to the first special plea sustained; respondents granted leave to amend special plea.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal directly to the Constitutional Court is granted.
  • The appeal is upheld.