Rapp Van Zyl Inc and Others v First Rand Bank and Others (4653/15) [2022] ZAWCHC 62; [2022] 3 All SA 437 (WCC) ; 2022 (5) SA 245 (WCC) (28 April 2022)

Rapp Van Zyl Inc and Others v First Rand Bank and Others (4653/15) [2022] ZAWCHC 62; [2022] 3 All SA 437 (WCC) ; 2022 (5) SA 245 (WCC) (28 April 2022)

The court found that the statements made by the defendants in the founding affidavit of the interdict application were defamatory of the plaintiffs, as they accused them of participating in an unlawful and fraudulent scheme to frustrate the bank's rights. The defence of qualified privilege was not upheld because the defendants did not have a sufficient factual foundation to allege that the plaintiffs were engaged in an ongoing scheme at the time the application was launched. The information relied upon was outdated and speculative, and the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to verify the plaintiffs' involvement before making serious allegations of fraud. The privilege does not...

Citation
[2022] ZAWCHC 62
Parties
Plaintiff: Rapp Van Zyl Inc; Plaintiff: Renate Rapp; Plaintiff: Chantel Van Zyl; Defendant: First Rand Bank; Defendant: Johanna Dorothea Lochner; Defendant: Rorich, Wolmarans & Luderitz Inc; Defendant: Raynault Meintjies
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 April 2022
Case Number
4653/15
Procedural Posture
Civil Liability / Liability Determination Under Rule 33(4); Quantum to Stand Over
Outcome
Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for such damages as the plaintiffs may prove or as may be agreed, pursuant to the publication of the defamatory statements. Defendants are also liable for the plaintiffs' costs of suit, including costs of two counsel where so employed.
Judges
M Sher
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Abuse of Process, Professional Ethics, Damages Liability, Insolvency Act Application
Delict Civil Procedure Commercial and Corporate Defamation Qualified Privilege Abuse of Process Professional Ethics Damages Liability +1 more

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 4 Authorities cited 20 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 4
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Rapp Van Zyl Inc

Plaintiff

Renate Rapp

Plaintiff

Chantel Van Zyl

Plaintiff

First Rand Bank

Defendant

Johanna Dorothea Lochner

Defendant

Rorich, Wolmarans & Luderitz Inc

Defendant

Raynault Meintjies

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Liability / Liability Determination Under Rule 33(4); Quantum to Stand Over

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the defendants in the founding affidavit of the interdict application were defamatory of the plaintiffs.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of qualified privilege applies to the defamatory statements made during legal proceedings.
  3. 3 Whether the defendants had a reasonable foundation for alleging fraud and abuse of process against the plaintiffs.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by the defendants in the founding affidavit of the interdict application were defamatory of the plaintiffs, as they accused them of participating in an unlawful and fraudulent scheme to frustrate the bank's rights. The defence of qualified privilege was not upheld because the defendants did not have a sufficient factual foundation to allege that the plaintiffs were engaged in an ongoing scheme at the time the application was launched. The information relied upon was outdated and speculative, and the defendants failed to take reasonable steps to verify the plaintiffs' involvement before making serious allegations of fraud. The privilege does not...

Court Disposition

Defendants are liable, jointly and severally, for such damages as the plaintiffs may prove or as may be agreed, pursuant to the publication of the defamatory statements. Defendants are also liable for the plaintiffs' costs of suit, including costs of two counsel where so employed.

Orders

  • The defendants shall be liable, jointly and severally (the one paying the other to be absolved), for such damages as the plaintiffs may prove, or as may be agreed, they are entitled to, pursuant to the publication of the defamatory statements set out in paragraphs 8, 55, 56.1, 58 and 59 of the founding affidavit in...
  • The defendants shall be liable, jointly and severally (the one paying the other to be absolved), for the plaintiffs' costs of suit, including the costs of two counsel where so employed.