Ngwadle and Another v Water Sisulu University and Another (4229/2016) [2019] ZAECMHC 33 (25 June 2019)

Ngwadle and Another v Water Sisulu University and Another (4229/2016) [2019] ZAECMHC 33 (25 June 2019)

The court found that the email authored by the second defendant was defamatory of the plaintiffs, imputing dishonesty, fraud, and criminal conduct. The publication was intentional, widely distributed, and had a significant adverse impact on the plaintiffs’ reputations and dignity. The defendants failed to appear or present any defence to rebut the presumptions of wrongfulness and intention. The court considered previous awards for defamation and the circumstances of the plaintiffs, concluding that R50,000 for each plaintiff was fair and reasonable compensation for the injury suffered. Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for damages and costs.

Citation
[2019] ZAECMHC 33
Parties
Plaintiff: Ncediwe Ngwadle; Plaintiff: Nokuthula Mthwa; Defendant: Walter Sisulu University; Defendant: Brigid Mosola
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Mthatha
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 June 2019
Case Number
4229/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Trial
Outcome
Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally for damages and costs.
Judges
NQUMSE
Legal Topics
Defamation, Actio Iniuriarum, Publication to Third Parties, Quantum of Damages, Injury to Reputation
Delict Defamation Actio Iniuriarum Publication to Third Parties Quantum of Damages Injury to Reputation

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

Parties

Ncediwe Ngwadle

Plaintiff

Nokuthula Mthwa

Plaintiff

Walter Sisulu University

Defendant

Brigid Mosola

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the email published by the second defendant was defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the publication was wrongful and intentional.
  3. 3 Whether the defamatory statement was published to third parties.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the email authored by the second defendant was defamatory of the plaintiffs, imputing dishonesty, fraud, and criminal conduct. The publication was intentional, widely distributed, and had a significant adverse impact on the plaintiffs’ reputations and dignity. The defendants failed to appear or present any defence to rebut the presumptions of wrongfulness and intention. The court considered previous awards for defamation and the circumstances of the plaintiffs, concluding that R50,000 for each plaintiff was fair and reasonable compensation for the injury suffered. Judgment was granted in favour of the plaintiffs for damages and costs.

Court Disposition

Judgment granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally for damages and costs.

Orders

  • Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiffs against the defendants jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, in the sum of R50,000 for each plaintiff.
  • The defendants are ordered to jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay the plaintiffs’ costs on the appropriate magistrates’ court scale, including the costs of counsel.