Monkwe v Moima (40629/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 327 (17 October 2008)

Monkwe v Moima (40629/2007) [2008] ZAGPHC 327 (17 October 2008)

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant uttered the words attributed to him in the articles. The journalist's notes were incomplete and did not reliably support the plaintiff's version. Furthermore, the plaintiff relied on innuendo to establish the defamatory meaning, but led no evidence regarding the secondary meaning of the words in the relevant context. The court held that the words used, even if uttered, did not justify an inference of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. Terms such as 'power monger', 'counter-revolutionary', and 'hi-jacking' were not shown to carry a defamatory meaning in the circumstances. The claims of...

Citation
[2008] ZAGPHC 327
Parties
Plaintiff: Hilda Ntebaleng Monkwe; Defendant: Solly Segopakampa Moima
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
17 October 2008
Case Number
40629/2007
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs.
Judges
Botha
Legal Topics
Defamation, Innuendo, Burden of Proof, Dishonesty Imputation
Delict Defamation Innuendo Burden of Proof Dishonesty Imputation

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 2 Authorities cited 1 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Hilda Ntebaleng Monkwe

Plaintiff

Solly Segopakampa Moima

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant uttered the words attributed to him in the published articles.
  2. 2 Whether the words published are defamatory of the plaintiff as alleged.
  3. 3 Whether the innuendo pleaded by the plaintiff is supported by evidence and context.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the plaintiff failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that the defendant uttered the words attributed to him in the articles. The journalist's notes were incomplete and did not reliably support the plaintiff's version. Furthermore, the plaintiff relied on innuendo to establish the defamatory meaning, but led no evidence regarding the secondary meaning of the words in the relevant context. The court held that the words used, even if uttered, did not justify an inference of dishonesty or untrustworthiness. Terms such as 'power monger', 'counter-revolutionary', and 'hi-jacking' were not shown to carry a defamatory meaning in the circumstances. The claims of...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claims are dismissed with costs.