Stobbs and Another v Mayathula-Khoza and Another (2017/37668) [2018] ZAGPJHC 650 (7 December 2018)

Stobbs and Another v Mayathula-Khoza and Another (2017/37668) [2018] ZAGPJHC 650 (7 December 2018)

The court found that the statements made by the MEC, although exaggerated, were relevant to the facts and constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest. The applicants, as public figures advocating for cannabis legalisation, must accept robust debate and criticism within defined limits. The technical defence under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act was dismissed, as the relief sought did not sound in money. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the statements were per se defamatory or that malice was present. The respondents' version of the facts was accepted under the Plascon-Evans rule, and the defence of fair comment succeeded. The...

Citation
[2018] ZAGPJHC 650
Parties
Applicant: Julian Christopher Stobbs; Applicant: Kathleen (Myrtle) Clarke; Respondent: Nandi Mayathula-Khoza; Respondent: Gauteng Department of Social Development
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
7 December 2018
Case Number
2017/37668
Procedural Posture
Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought by Way of Motion Proceedings; Opposed on Merits and Technical Grounds.
Outcome
Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.
Judges
Spilg
Legal Topics
Defamation, Fair Comment, Malice, Constitutional Litigation Against State, Motion Proceedings, Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State
Delict Defamation Fair Comment Malice Constitutional Litigation Against State Motion Proceedings Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Organs of State

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 8 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Julian Christopher Stobbs

Applicant

Kathleen (Myrtle) Clarke

Applicant

Nandi Mayathula-Khoza

Respondent

Gauteng Department of Social Development

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Urgent Application / Final Relief Sought by Way of Motion Proceedings; Opposed on Merits and Technical Grounds.

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the MEC on a public radio show were defamatory of the applicants.
  2. 2 Whether the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act 40 of 2002 applies to the relief sought.
  3. 3 Whether the statements amounted to fair comment or were made maliciously.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by the MEC, although exaggerated, were relevant to the facts and constituted fair comment on a matter of public interest. The applicants, as public figures advocating for cannabis legalisation, must accept robust debate and criticism within defined limits. The technical defence under the Institution of Legal Proceedings Against Certain Organs of State Act was dismissed, as the relief sought did not sound in money. The applicants failed to demonstrate that the statements were per se defamatory or that malice was present. The respondents' version of the facts was accepted under the Plascon-Evans rule, and the defence of fair comment succeeded. The...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed; each party to pay its own costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • Each party is to pay its own costs.