Steyn v Alexandra Security (Pty) Ltd and Another (A530/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 102 (26 June 2009)

Steyn v Alexandra Security (Pty) Ltd and Another (A530/08) [2009] ZAWCHC 102 (26 June 2009)

The court found that Steyn's letter was defamatory of both Alexandra Security and Cheminais. However, the occasion of publication was privileged, as Steyn was communicating with fellow homeowners and residents about security concerns affecting their community. Most statements in the letter were relevant to the privileged occasion and represented Steyn's genuine opinions, not motivated by malice. The only exception was the phrase 'ineffectual imbecile' directed at Cheminais, which constituted unjustifiable personal abuse and was not germane to the occasion, thus not protected by privilege. The court held that Steyn was liable to Cheminais for this limited defamation only, and not to...

Citation
[2009] ZAWCHC 102
Parties
Appellant: Mark Steyn; Respondent: Alexandra Security (Pty) Ltd; Respondent: Andre Dominic Cheminais
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 June 2009
Case Number
A530/08
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Judgment on Defamation
Outcome
Appeal upheld. Alexandra Security's claim dismissed. Damages to Cheminais reduced to R10,000. Costs awarded to Steyn for the appeal; no order as to costs in the lower court.
Judges
Owen Rogers, Meer
Legal Topics
Defamation, Qualified Privilege, Damages Assessment, Animus Iniuriandi
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Qualified Privilege Damages Assessment Animus Iniuriandi

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

Parties

Mark Steyn

Appellant

Alexandra Security (Pty) Ltd

Respondent

Andre Dominic Cheminais

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates Court Judgment on Defamation

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Was Steyn's letter defamatory of Alexandra Security and/or Cheminais?
  2. 2 Did the defence of qualified privilege apply to Steyn's publication?
  3. 3 Was Steyn actuated by malice in publishing the letter?

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that Steyn's letter was defamatory of both Alexandra Security and Cheminais. However, the occasion of publication was privileged, as Steyn was communicating with fellow homeowners and residents about security concerns affecting their community. Most statements in the letter were relevant to the privileged occasion and represented Steyn's genuine opinions, not motivated by malice. The only exception was the phrase 'ineffectual imbecile' directed at Cheminais, which constituted unjustifiable personal abuse and was not germane to the occasion, thus not protected by privilege. The court held that Steyn was liable to Cheminais for this limited defamation only, and not to...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld. Alexandra Security's claim dismissed. Damages to Cheminais reduced to R10,000. Costs awarded to Steyn for the appeal; no order as to costs in the lower court.

Orders

  • The appeal succeeds with costs, payable by the respondents jointly and severally.
  • The first plaintiff's claim is dismissed.