Sauls v Hendrickse (416/90) [1992] ZASCA 68; 1992 (3) SA 912 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 205 (A) (19 May 1992)

Sauls v Hendrickse (416/90) [1992] ZASCA 68; 1992 (3) SA 912 (AD); [1992] 2 All SA 205 (A) (19 May 1992)

The court held that the statement made by the respondent referred only to 'some office bearers of NAAWU' and not to all office bearers, nor specifically to the appellants. There was no evidence or background facts from which a reasonable person acquainted with the appellants could infer that the statement referred to them personally. The group referenced was indeterminate and potentially large, and the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the statement was published of and concerning them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Citation
[1992] ZASCA 68
Parties
Appellant: Frederick Sauls; Appellant: John Gomomo; Appellant: Elliot Mtwa; Appellant: Lesley Kettledas; Appellant: Jurie Harris; Respondent: Allan Hendrickse
Court
Supreme Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
19 May 1992
Case Number
416/90
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs.
Judges
Smalberger, Hoexter, Van den Heever
Legal Topics
Defamation, Group Libel, Burden of Proof
Delict Defamation Group Libel Burden of Proof

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 6 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Frederick Sauls

Appellant

John Gomomo

Appellant

Elliot Mtwa

Appellant

Lesley Kettledas

Appellant

Jurie Harris

Appellant

Allan Hendrickse

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Trial Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by the respondent was defamatory of the appellants.
  2. 2 Whether the statement was published of and concerning the appellants as individual members of a group.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statement made by the respondent referred only to 'some office bearers of NAAWU' and not to all office bearers, nor specifically to the appellants. There was no evidence or background facts from which a reasonable person acquainted with the appellants could infer that the statement referred to them personally. The group referenced was indeterminate and potentially large, and the appellants failed to discharge the onus of proving that the statement was published of and concerning them. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.