Molotlegi and Another v Mokwalase (222/09) [2010] ZASCA 59; [2010] 4 All SA 258 (SCA) (1 April 2010)

Molotlegi and Another v Mokwalase (222/09) [2010] ZASCA 59; [2010] 4 All SA 258 (SCA) (1 April 2010)

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by deciding the words were defamatory per se without hearing evidence of the special circumstances and context, as the respondent's case relied on an innuendo. The separation of issues was mischaracterised, failing to account for the pleaded context. The trial court exceeded its mandate by deciding on wrongfulness and animus iniuriandi at the separated stage. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the trial court's order was set aside, and the matter was referred back for trial to allow evidence to be led on the context and innuendo. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs, including those of appeal, as they were...

Citation
[2010] ZASCA 59
Parties
Appellant: Kgosi Leruo Molotlegi; Appellant: Royal Bafokeng Administration; Respondent: Mosoko Mokwalase
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
1 April 2010
Case Number
222/09
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West High Court, Mafikeng
Outcome
Appeal allowed to the extent that the trial court's order is set aside and the matter is referred back for trial. Appellants to pay costs of the separated hearing and the appeal, jointly and severally.
Judges
Mthiyane, Heher, Bosielo, Shongwe, Seriti
Legal Topics
Defamation, Separation of Issues, Innuendo, Animus Iniuriandi, Wrongfulness
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Separation of Issues Innuendo Animus Iniuriandi Wrongfulness

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
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kgosi Leruo Molotlegi

Appellant

Royal Bafokeng Administration

Appellant

Mosoko Mokwalase

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From North West High Court, Mafikeng

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the trial court erred in finding the words uttered were defamatory per se without reference to the pleaded innuendo.
  2. 2 Whether the separation of issues in terms of rule 33(4) was properly granted and formulated.
  3. 3 Whether the trial court was correct to decide issues of wrongfulness and animus iniuriandi at the separated stage.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal held that the trial court erred by deciding the words were defamatory per se without hearing evidence of the special circumstances and context, as the respondent's case relied on an innuendo. The separation of issues was mischaracterised, failing to account for the pleaded context. The trial court exceeded its mandate by deciding on wrongfulness and animus iniuriandi at the separated stage. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the trial court's order was set aside, and the matter was referred back for trial to allow evidence to be led on the context and innuendo. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs, including those of appeal, as they were...

Court Disposition

Appeal allowed to the extent that the trial court's order is set aside and the matter is referred back for trial. Appellants to pay costs of the separated hearing and the appeal, jointly and severally.

Orders

  • The order of the court below is set aside.
  • The appellants are ordered to pay the costs of the hearing of the separated issues, jointly and severally.