Mkhonza v Minister of Police (16629/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 266 (8 May 2015)

Mkhonza v Minister of Police (16629/12) [2015] ZAGPPHC 266 (8 May 2015)

The court found that the statement referring to the plaintiff as a 'known criminal' was not justified by any facts, as the charges against him had been withdrawn and he had no convictions. The statement was not fair comment, as it was not a genuine expression of opinion based on substantially true facts, nor was it privileged, as it was published to persons who had no duty to receive such information and exceeded the limits of privilege. The court held that the statement was a gratuitous and uncalled-for insult, infringing the plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the defences of fair comment and...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPPHC 266
Parties
Plaintiff: Henry Mkhonza; Defendant: Minister of Police
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 May 2015
Case Number
16629/12
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated
Outcome
Defendant held liable for defamation; merits decided in favour of plaintiff; quantum to be determined separately.
Judges
Jordaan
Legal Topics
Defamation, Animus Iniuriandi, Privilege, Fair Comment, Constitutional Rights, Presumption of Innocence
Delict Defamation Animus Iniuriandi Privilege Fair Comment Constitutional Rights Presumption of Innocence

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 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Henry Mkhonza

Plaintiff

Minister of Police

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Merits Only; Quantum Separated

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant is liable for defamation arising from the publication of the statement referring to the plaintiff as a 'known criminal'.
  2. 2 Whether the defences of fair comment and privilege are available to the defendant under the circumstances.
  3. 3 Whether the statement infringed the plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statement referring to the plaintiff as a 'known criminal' was not justified by any facts, as the charges against him had been withdrawn and he had no convictions. The statement was not fair comment, as it was not a genuine expression of opinion based on substantially true facts, nor was it privileged, as it was published to persons who had no duty to receive such information and exceeded the limits of privilege. The court held that the statement was a gratuitous and uncalled-for insult, infringing the plaintiff's constitutional rights, including the presumption of innocence. The defendant failed to discharge the onus of proving the defences of fair comment and...

Court Disposition

Defendant held liable for defamation; merits decided in favour of plaintiff; quantum to be determined separately.

Orders

  • The defendant is held liable to the plaintiff with costs for the defamatory words or statement in question and for the plaintiff's agreed or proven damages.