Mokoena and Another v Minister of Tourism and Others (8931/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 635 (27 August 2021)

Mokoena and Another v Minister of Tourism and Others (8931/2020) [2021] ZAGPJHC 635 (27 August 2021)

The applicants failed to establish the subsistence of copyright in the alleged literary work because the document presented was incomplete and lacked evidence of originality. No sufficient proof was provided that the respondents copied or adapted the applicants' work. The applicants did not identify specific parts of their work that were allegedly reproduced, nor did they demonstrate objective similarity or causal connection. The counter-application for a declaration of vexatiousness was dismissed as the applicants' conduct did not meet the threshold for vexatious litigation; they had not litigated prolifically or with malice, and their affidavits were devoid of abuse or improper motive....

Citation
[2021] ZAGPJHC 635
Parties
Applicant: Mokoena, Diroetleng David; Applicant: Mokoena, Nombuso; Respondent: Minister of Tourism; Respondent: Gauteng Tourism Authority; Respondent: Kunjalo Centre for Development
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
27 August 2021
Case Number
8931/2020
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Main Application and Counter Application
Outcome
Main application dismissed; counter-application dismissed; costs awarded as specified.
Judges
P V Ternent
Legal Topics
Copyright Infringement, Originality Requirement, Vexatious Litigation, Motion Proceedings, Costs Order
Intellectual Property Civil Procedure Copyright Infringement Originality Requirement Vexatious Litigation Motion Proceedings Costs Order

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 21 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mokoena, Diroetleng David

Applicant

Mokoena, Nombuso

Applicant

Minister of Tourism

Respondent

Gauteng Tourism Authority

Respondent

Kunjalo Centre for Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Opposed Motion; Main Application and Counter Application

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicants established subsistence of copyright in the alleged literary work.
  2. 2 Whether the respondents infringed the applicants' copyright by copying or adapting the work.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants' conduct was vexatious under the Vexatious Proceedings Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The applicants failed to establish the subsistence of copyright in the alleged literary work because the document presented was incomplete and lacked evidence of originality. No sufficient proof was provided that the respondents copied or adapted the applicants' work. The applicants did not identify specific parts of their work that were allegedly reproduced, nor did they demonstrate objective similarity or causal connection. The counter-application for a declaration of vexatiousness was dismissed as the applicants' conduct did not meet the threshold for vexatious litigation; they had not litigated prolifically or with malice, and their affidavits were devoid of abuse or improper motive....

Court Disposition

Main application dismissed; counter-application dismissed; costs awarded as specified.

Orders

  • The main application is dismissed.
  • The applicants are ordered to pay the first and second respondents' costs jointly and severally, the one paying, the other to be absolved.