Soyi v Daily Dispatch and Another (EL448/2015, ECD848/2015) [2018] ZAECELLC 9 (20 September 2018)

Soyi v Daily Dispatch and Another (EL448/2015, ECD848/2015) [2018] ZAECELLC 9 (20 September 2018)

The court found that the article published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiff, imputing to him a major role in a criminal scam involving the sale of municipal land to desperate people. The article's tone and presentation went beyond reporting unlawful occupation and instead portrayed the plaintiff as a perpetrator of fraud, without fairly conveying the context or the explanations provided by the plaintiff and his co-committee member. The evidence did not establish that the plaintiff was selling land or conveying permanent rights of occupation; rather, sites were being allocated unlawfully for a sum paid for clearing work. The defences of truth and public benefit, and...

Citation
[2018] ZAECELLC 9
Parties
Plaintiff: Mzukisi Soyi; Defendant: Daily Dispatch; Defendant: Mamela Gowa
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, East London Local Court
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 September 2018
Case Number
EL448/2015 / ECD848/2015
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial
Outcome
Defamation established; neither defence of truth and public benefit nor reasonable publication succeeded. Plaintiff awarded general damages.
Judges
M.J. Lowe
Legal Topics
Defamation, Media Privilege, Reasonable Publication, Truth and Public Benefit, General Damages
Delict Defamation Media Privilege Reasonable Publication Truth and Public Benefit General 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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Mzukisi Soyi

Plaintiff

Daily Dispatch

Defendant

Mamela Gowa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment After Trial

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the newspaper article published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defences of truth and public benefit or reasonable publication (Bogoshi defence) are established by the defendants.
  3. 3 What quantum of damages should be awarded to the plaintiff for defamation.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the article published by the defendants was defamatory of the plaintiff, imputing to him a major role in a criminal scam involving the sale of municipal land to desperate people. The article's tone and presentation went beyond reporting unlawful occupation and instead portrayed the plaintiff as a perpetrator of fraud, without fairly conveying the context or the explanations provided by the plaintiff and his co-committee member. The evidence did not establish that the plaintiff was selling land or conveying permanent rights of occupation; rather, sites were being allocated unlawfully for a sum paid for clearing work. The defences of truth and public benefit, and...

Court Disposition

Defamation established; neither defence of truth and public benefit nor reasonable publication succeeded. Plaintiff awarded general damages.

Orders

  • First and Second Defendants are jointly and severally to pay to Plaintiff the sum of R20,000.
  • First and Second Defendants are to pay Plaintiff's costs on the Magistrates' Court scale.