Rabe v Marais and Another (A81/2022; 139/2019) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 51 (13 September 2023)

Rabe v Marais and Another (A81/2022; 139/2019) [2023] ZAMPMBHC 51 (13 September 2023)

The appeal court found that the Magistrate misdirected himself by concluding that the statements published by the appellant were not relevant or germane to the issue at hand, despite accepting that the occasion was privileged, that there was no malice, and that the appellant acted out of frustration at the authorities' inaction. The respondents failed to plead malice, and the appellant's explanation was not rejected. The defence of qualified privilege was therefore available to the appellant, and the claims for defamation could not succeed. The judgment and order of the Magistrate were set aside, and the respondents' claims dismissed with costs.

Citation
[2023] ZAMPMBHC 51
Parties
Appellant: Jan Andries Rabe; Respondent: Hendrik Abraham Marais; Respondent: Phillip Jacobus Hattingh
Court
Mbombela High Court, Mpumalanga
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
13 September 2023
Case Number
A81/2022; 139/2019
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld; Magistrate's judgment and order set aside; respondents' claims dismissed with costs.
Judges
Roelofse, Gumede
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Malice, Relevance in Privilege, Damages
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Qualified Privilege Malice Relevance in Privilege Damages

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

Parties

Jan Andries Rabe

Appellant

Hendrik Abraham Marais

Respondent

Phillip Jacobus Hattingh

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the appellant were defamatory of the respondents.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the impugned statements.
  3. 3 Whether the statements were relevant and germane to the privileged occasion.

Ratio Decidendi

The appeal court found that the Magistrate misdirected himself by concluding that the statements published by the appellant were not relevant or germane to the issue at hand, despite accepting that the occasion was privileged, that there was no malice, and that the appellant acted out of frustration at the authorities' inaction. The respondents failed to plead malice, and the appellant's explanation was not rejected. The defence of qualified privilege was therefore available to the appellant, and the claims for defamation could not succeed. The judgment and order of the Magistrate were set aside, and the respondents' claims dismissed with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld; Magistrate's judgment and order set aside; respondents' claims dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs.
  • The judgment and order of Magistrate D Van Rooyen made on 1 November 2022 are set aside.