Moyane and Another v Lackay (35580/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1262 (24 November 2017)

Moyane and Another v Lackay (35580/15) [2017] ZAGPPHC 1262 (24 November 2017)

The court held that SARS, as an organ of state, does not possess locus standi to claim damages for defamation, as its reputation is not a personality right but part of its patrimony, and protection lies in claims for actual patrimonial loss, not defamation. The exception to SARS’s claim was upheld and its claim dismissed. Regarding the first plaintiff, Mr Moyane, the court found that the particulars of claim sufficiently alleged publication of the defamatory statements by the defendant, and the damages claimed, though globular, were permissible in sentimental damages claims. The statements complained of, if false as alleged, were defamatory of Mr Moyane in both his personal and...

Citation
[2017] ZAGPPHC 1262
Parties
Plaintiff: Thomas Swahibi Moyane; Plaintiff: South African Revenue Service; Defendant: Adriaan Mark Lackay
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
24 November 2017
Case Number
35580/15
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim in Defamation Action
Outcome
Exception to SARS’s claim upheld and claim dismissed with costs; exception to Mr Moyane’s claim dismissed with costs.
Judges
Khumalo
Legal Topics
Defamation, Locus Standi, Quantification of Damages, Publication, Exception Procedure
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Locus Standi Quantification of Damages Publication Exception Procedure

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 24 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Thomas Swahibi Moyane

Plaintiff

South African Revenue Service

Plaintiff

Adriaan Mark Lackay

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim in Defamation Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether SARS, as an organ of state, has locus standi to claim damages for defamation.
  2. 2 Whether the particulars of claim adequately allege publication of the defamatory statements by the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether the damages claimed are sufficiently quantified in the particulars of claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that SARS, as an organ of state, does not possess locus standi to claim damages for defamation, as its reputation is not a personality right but part of its patrimony, and protection lies in claims for actual patrimonial loss, not defamation. The exception to SARS’s claim was upheld and its claim dismissed. Regarding the first plaintiff, Mr Moyane, the court found that the particulars of claim sufficiently alleged publication of the defamatory statements by the defendant, and the damages claimed, though globular, were permissible in sentimental damages claims. The statements complained of, if false as alleged, were defamatory of Mr Moyane in both his personal and...

Court Disposition

Exception to SARS’s claim upheld and claim dismissed with costs; exception to Mr Moyane’s claim dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The exception in respect of the second plaintiff’s claim (SARS) is upheld.
  • The second plaintiff’s claim is dismissed with costs.