Roberts v Johncom Media Investments Limited (8677/04) [2007] ZAWCHC 1 (8 January 2007)

Roberts v Johncom Media Investments Limited (8677/04) [2007] ZAWCHC 1 (8 January 2007)

The court found that the statements complained of were either not defamatory or, if defamatory, were substantially true and published in the public interest. The plaintiff's conduct, particularly in relation to the SABC complaint, was obsessive and vindictive, justifying the characterisation in the article. The defendant acted reasonably in publishing the researched article, relying on a careful and meticulous journalist. The plaintiff's contradictory and unconvincing evidence undermined his case. The court held that the defendant was not negligent and that the publication was lawful. Regarding the interdict, the court found the republication of the article online was unintentional and...

Citation
[2007] ZAWCHC 1
Parties
Plaintiff: Ronald Suresh Roberts; Defendant: Johncom Media Investments Limited
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
8 January 2007
Case Number
8677/04
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages for defamation is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Plaintiff's application for an interdict is also dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.
Judges
Weinkove
Legal Topics
Defamation, Media Liability, Reasonable Publication, Fair Comment, Truth and Public Benefit
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Media Liability Reasonable Publication Fair Comment Truth and Public Benefit

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Ronald Suresh Roberts

Plaintiff

Johncom Media Investments Limited

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the published article was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defendant succeeded in establishing the truth and public interest of the statements.
  3. 3 Whether the publication was reasonable and without negligence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements complained of were either not defamatory or, if defamatory, were substantially true and published in the public interest. The plaintiff's conduct, particularly in relation to the SABC complaint, was obsessive and vindictive, justifying the characterisation in the article. The defendant acted reasonably in publishing the researched article, relying on a careful and meticulous journalist. The plaintiff's contradictory and unconvincing evidence undermined his case. The court held that the defendant was not negligent and that the publication was lawful. Regarding the interdict, the court found the republication of the article online was unintentional and...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages for defamation is dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel. Plaintiff's application for an interdict is also dismissed with costs, including costs of two counsel.

Orders

  • Plaintiff's claim for damages is dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.
  • Plaintiff's application for an interdict is dismissed with costs, including costs occasioned by the employment of two counsel.