Nortier and Another v Randall (1216/2009) [2010] ZAECPEHC 13 (9 April 2010)

Nortier and Another v Randall (1216/2009) [2010] ZAECPEHC 13 (9 April 2010)

The court found, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the respondent authored and distributed the pamphlets and letters in question, including annexure 'M', and that the contents were defamatory of and concerning the applicants. The respondent's denial was rejected as fictitious and unsupported by the evidence. The court held that the applicants had established the requisites for a final interdict, as the communications were baseless, malicious, and posed a real threat to the applicants' professional reputation and personal safety. The respondent's conduct was not protected by the Bill of Rights, as it was reckless and wanton. Accordingly, the rule nisi was confirmed and costs were...

Citation
[2010] ZAECPEHC 13
Parties
Applicant: Christiaan Louis Nortier; Applicant: Goldberg & De Villiers Inc; Respondent: Leonard Randall
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
9 April 2010
Case Number
1216/2009
Procedural Posture
Civil Application / Final Judgment After Referral to Oral Evidence
Outcome
Application for a final interdict granted; rule nisi confirmed; costs awarded to applicants.
Judges
S M Mbenenge
Legal Topics
Final Interdict, Defamation, Harassment, Burden of Proof, Costs Order
Civil Procedure Delict Final Interdict Defamation Harassment Burden of Proof Costs Order

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 2 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Christiaan Louis Nortier

Applicant

Goldberg & De Villiers Inc

Applicant

Leonard Randall

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Application / Final Judgment After Referral to Oral Evidence

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondent authored and distributed defamatory pamphlets concerning the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the contents of the pamphlets are defamatory and justify an interdict.
  3. 3 Whether the applicants have established the requisites for a final interdict.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found, on a preponderance of probabilities, that the respondent authored and distributed the pamphlets and letters in question, including annexure 'M', and that the contents were defamatory of and concerning the applicants. The respondent's denial was rejected as fictitious and unsupported by the evidence. The court held that the applicants had established the requisites for a final interdict, as the communications were baseless, malicious, and posed a real threat to the applicants' professional reputation and personal safety. The respondent's conduct was not protected by the Bill of Rights, as it was reckless and wanton. Accordingly, the rule nisi was confirmed and costs were...

Court Disposition

Application for a final interdict granted; rule nisi confirmed; costs awarded to applicants.

Orders

  • The rule nisi granted by this Court on 7 May 2009 is hereby confirmed.
  • The costs of the application shall include those reserved on 3 September 2009.