Sher and Another v Vermaak (AR 197/13) [2014] ZAKZPHC 8 (25 February 2014)

Sher and Another v Vermaak (AR 197/13) [2014] ZAKZPHC 8 (25 February 2014)

The court held that the statements regarding arrogance and poaching, when viewed objectively and in context, did not amount to defamation. The statement about arrogance described the respondent's conduct at a disciplinary hearing and did not imply dishonourable conduct or diminish his reputation among reasonable readers. The statement about poaching members did not, in the context of running clubs and freedom of association, suggest dishonourable or illicit conduct. The respondent failed to prove that these statements were defamatory. The appeal succeeded, and the appellants were absolved from the instance with costs.

Citation
[2014] ZAKZPHC 8
Parties
Appellant: Cecil Sher; Appellant: Lorraine Spencer; Respondent: William Vermaak
Court
Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Pietermaritzburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
25 February 2014
Case Number
AR 197/13
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Liability and Quantum in Defamation Action
Outcome
Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside. The appellants are absolved from the instance with costs.
Judges
Ploos van Amstel, K Pillay, Poyo-Dlwati
Legal Topics
Defamation, Wrongful Publication, Protected Comment, Quantum of Damages
Delict Defamation Wrongful Publication Protected Comment Quantum of 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 5 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Cecil Sher

Appellant

Lorraine Spencer

Appellant

William Vermaak

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal Against Liability and Quantum in Defamation Action

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements in the letter regarding arrogance and poaching were defamatory of the respondent.
  2. 2 Whether the statements were wrongful and intentional publications.
  3. 3 Whether the defences of protected comment and absence of malice apply.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statements regarding arrogance and poaching, when viewed objectively and in context, did not amount to defamation. The statement about arrogance described the respondent's conduct at a disciplinary hearing and did not imply dishonourable conduct or diminish his reputation among reasonable readers. The statement about poaching members did not, in the context of running clubs and freedom of association, suggest dishonourable or illicit conduct. The respondent failed to prove that these statements were defamatory. The appeal succeeded, and the appellants were absolved from the instance with costs.

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. The order of the court a quo is set aside. The appellants are absolved from the instance with costs.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds.
  • The order made by the court a quo is set aside and replaced with: 'The defendants are absolved from the instance with costs.'