Naylor and Another v Jansen (243/2004) [2005] ZASCA 58; [2005] 4 All SA 26 (C); 2006 (3) SA 546 (SCA) (31 May 2005)

Naylor and Another v Jansen (243/2004) [2005] ZASCA 58; [2005] 4 All SA 26 (C); 2006 (3) SA 546 (SCA) (31 May 2005)

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Naylor had uttered defamatory words about Jansen, which imputed theft and were understood as such by those present. The court held that Naylor failed to rebut the presumption of animus injuriandi, as he knowingly made a statement he knew to be untrue and with the object of injuring Jansen's reputation. The defence of qualified privilege failed because malice was established. The court further held that evidence of Jansen's breach of employment, while not amounting to theft, was directly linked to the defamatory statement and should have been considered in mitigation of damages. Accordingly, the damages award was reduced from R30,000 to R15,000. On...

Citation
[2005] ZASCA 58
Parties
Appellant: Michael Naylor; Appellant: Atomaer (RSA) (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Pieter Johann Jansen; Respondent: Atomaer Holdings (Pty) Ltd
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 May 2005
Case Number
243/2004
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Costs Order
Outcome
Defamation appeal succeeds only to the extent that the damages award is reduced from R30,000 to R15,000; otherwise dismissed. Costs appeal upheld; Jansen awarded costs of the arrest application.
Judges
Scott, Cameron, Cloete, Heher, Mlambo
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Animus Injuriandi, Mitigation of Damages, Arrest to Confirm Jurisdiction, Costs Award
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Qualified Privilege Animus Injuriandi Mitigation of Damages Arrest to Confirm Jurisdiction 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 5 Authorities cited 23 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Michael Naylor

Appellant

Atomaer (RSA) (Pty) Ltd

Appellant

Pieter Johann Jansen

Respondent

Atomaer Holdings (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From High Court Judgment and Costs Order

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by Naylor was defamatory of Jansen.
  2. 2 Whether Naylor acted with animus injuriandi in making the statement.
  3. 3 Whether the occasion was privileged and, if so, whether malice was present.

Ratio Decidendi

The Supreme Court of Appeal found that Naylor had uttered defamatory words about Jansen, which imputed theft and were understood as such by those present. The court held that Naylor failed to rebut the presumption of animus injuriandi, as he knowingly made a statement he knew to be untrue and with the object of injuring Jansen's reputation. The defence of qualified privilege failed because malice was established. The court further held that evidence of Jansen's breach of employment, while not amounting to theft, was directly linked to the defamatory statement and should have been considered in mitigation of damages. Accordingly, the damages award was reduced from R30,000 to R15,000. On...

Court Disposition

Defamation appeal succeeds only to the extent that the damages award is reduced from R30,000 to R15,000; otherwise dismissed. Costs appeal upheld; Jansen awarded costs of the arrest application.

Orders

  • The amount of R30,000 awarded to Jansen is reduced to R15,000.
  • Save for the reduction in damages, the defamation appeal is dismissed.