Mthimunye v RCP Media and Another (23190/2005) [2007] ZAGPHC 372; 2012 (1) SA 199 (T) (6 March 2007)

Mthimunye v RCP Media and Another (23190/2005) [2007] ZAGPHC 372; 2012 (1) SA 199 (T) (6 March 2007)

The court found that the article published by the defendants was defamatory in four respects: it stated that the plaintiff had been found guilty of sexual harassment, described him as lecherous, implied he was party to improper use of taxpayers' money, and implied he was party to the failure to take complaints seriously. The apology published by the defendants only addressed the error regarding the conviction and did not retract the other defamatory statements. The court held that the apology was insufficient to vindicate the plaintiff. Considering the wide publication of the article, the plaintiff's standing in the community, and the impact on his personal and professional life, the...

Citation
[2007] ZAGPHC 372
Parties
Plaintiff: George Mthimunye; Defendant: RCP Media; Defendant: African Eye News Services
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
6 March 2007
Case Number
23190/2005
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Trial
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally for R35,000, with costs awarded on the magistrate's court scale.
Judges
B. R. Du Plessis
Legal Topics
Defamation, Quantum of Damages, Apology and Retraction, Costs Award
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Quantum of Damages Apology and Retraction Costs Award

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

Parties

George Mthimunye

Plaintiff

RCP Media

Defendant

African Eye News Services

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published article was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendants' apology adequately vindicated the plaintiff and restored his reputation.
  3. 3 If defamation is established, what quantum of damages should be awarded.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the article published by the defendants was defamatory in four respects: it stated that the plaintiff had been found guilty of sexual harassment, described him as lecherous, implied he was party to improper use of taxpayers' money, and implied he was party to the failure to take complaints seriously. The apology published by the defendants only addressed the error regarding the conviction and did not retract the other defamatory statements. The court held that the apology was insufficient to vindicate the plaintiff. Considering the wide publication of the article, the plaintiff's standing in the community, and the impact on his personal and professional life, the...

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally for R35,000, with costs awarded on the magistrate's court scale.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, in the sum of R35,000.
  • The defendants are ordered, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the plaintiff's costs on the appropriate magistrate's court scale, including the costs of counsel.