Nolte v Minister of Safety & Security and Another (3444/10) [2014] ZAECPEHC 1 (31 January 2014)

Nolte v Minister of Safety & Security and Another (3444/10) [2014] ZAECPEHC 1 (31 January 2014)

The court found that the statements made by the second defendant in his affidavit were per se defamatory and published to persons who understood them to mean the plaintiff had committed fraud and was dishonest. The defendants failed to rebut the presumptions of unlawfulness and intention, as the second defendant...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2014] ZAECPEHC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: Alwyn Jacobus Nolte; Defendant: Minister of Safety & Security; Defendant: Senior Superintendent M J Mapena
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
31 January 2014
Case Number
3444/10
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Trial
Outcome
The plaintiff's claim for defamation succeeded. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages and costs.
Judges
E Revelas
Legal Topics
Defamation, Malicious Prosecution, Qualified Privilege, Damages Assessment, Employment Misconduct
Delict Defamation Malicious Prosecution Qualified Privilege Damages Assessment Employment Misconduct

Source-derived case record

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

Alwyn Jacobus Nolte

Plaintiff

Minister of Safety & Security

Defendant

Senior Superintendent M J Mapena

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the second defendant in his affidavit were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the second defendant acted maliciously in laying criminal charges and instituting disciplinary proceedings against the plaintiff.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants can rely on qualified privilege as a defence to the defamation claim.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by the second defendant in his affidavit were per se defamatory and published to persons who understood them to mean the plaintiff had committed fraud and was dishonest. The defendants failed to rebut the presumptions of unlawfulness and intention, as the second defendant acted with malice and singled out the plaintiff for prosecution without reasonable grounds, contrary to SAPS regulations and common sense. The defence of qualified privilege was not available due to malice. The plaintiff's conduct was reasonable and in compliance with regulations, and the second defendant's refusal to authorize air travel was unjustified. The harm to the...

Court Disposition

The plaintiff's claim for defamation succeeded. The defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay damages and costs.

Orders

  • The defendants are jointly and severally liable, the one paying the other to be absolved, to pay damages to the plaintiff in the amount of R58,000.00 plus interest at the applicable legal rate from the date of judgment to the date of payment.
  • The defendants are to pay the plaintiff's costs of suit, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved.