Mkhwane v Dyakala (14102/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1024 (14 October 2024)

Mkhwane v Dyakala (14102/2020) [2024] ZAGPJHC 1024 (14 October 2024)

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the trial court's factual findings were faithful to the evidence and not clearly wrong. The plaintiff's denial of the critical conversation was rejected due to the poor quality of his evidence, and the defendant's version was accepted. The imputation of corruption was found to be substantially true and made in the public interest, in line with constitutional principles and case law. The acceptance of the unpleaded defence of fair comment did not cause identifiable prejudice to the plaintiff, as no such prejudice was claimed or substantiated during trial. There is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 1024
Parties
Plaintiff: Jason Mkhwane; Defendant: Andile Philip Dyakala
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
14 October 2024
Case Number
14102/2020
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Trial Judgment
Outcome
Leave to appeal is refused.
Judges
S D J Wilson
Legal Topics
Defamation, Truth as Defence, Public Interest, Fair Comment, Prejudice, Factual Findings on Appeal
Delict Defamation Truth as Defence Public Interest Fair Comment Prejudice Factual Findings on Appeal

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 3 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jason Mkhwane

Plaintiff

Andile Philip Dyakala

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal / Application for Leave to Appeal After Trial Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in its factual finding regarding the denial of a critical conversation by the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the imputation of corruption was in the public interest and supported by evidence.
  3. 3 Whether the court was wrong to uphold the unpleaded defence of fair comment and whether prejudice was established.

Ratio Decidendi

The application for leave to appeal was dismissed because the trial court's factual findings were faithful to the evidence and not clearly wrong. The plaintiff's denial of the critical conversation was rejected due to the poor quality of his evidence, and the defendant's version was accepted. The imputation of corruption was found to be substantially true and made in the public interest, in line with constitutional principles and case law. The acceptance of the unpleaded defence of fair comment did not cause identifiable prejudice to the plaintiff, as no such prejudice was claimed or substantiated during trial. There is no reasonable prospect that another court would reach a different...

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal is refused.

Orders

  • The application for leave to appeal is dismissed.