Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysunie v Pashut (28706/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 408 (30 August 2019)

Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysunie v Pashut (28706/2018) [2019] ZAGPPHC 408 (30 August 2019)

The court held that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim were sufficient to disclose a cause of action for defamation. The exceptions raised by the defendant were found to be unsustainable, as the particulars foreshadowed the necessary evidence and were not vague or embarrassing. The court emphasized that exceptions should not be upheld on technical grounds where the pleadings, read as a whole, set out the essential elements of the claim. The requirement of publication was adequately pleaded, and the defendant would have the opportunity to challenge the evidence at trial. The court dismissed all exceptions and ordered the defendant to pay the costs, including those of senior counsel.

Citation
[2019] ZAGPPHC 408
Parties
Plaintiff: Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysunie; Defendant: Michael Pashut
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
30 August 2019
Case Number
28706/2018
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim
Outcome
All exceptions dismissed. Costs awarded against the defendant, including costs of senior counsel.
Judges
M Klein
Legal Topics
Exception Procedure, Defamation, Pleading Requirements, Publication Requirement
Civil Procedure Delict Exception Procedure Defamation Pleading Requirements Publication Requirement

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 14 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Suid-Afrikaanse Onderwysunie

Plaintiff

Michael Pashut

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Amended Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the amended particulars of claim disclose a proper cause of action for defamation.
  2. 2 Whether the exceptions raised by the defendant are sustainable in law.
  3. 3 Whether the particulars of claim are vague and embarrassing.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the plaintiff's amended particulars of claim were sufficient to disclose a cause of action for defamation. The exceptions raised by the defendant were found to be unsustainable, as the particulars foreshadowed the necessary evidence and were not vague or embarrassing. The court emphasized that exceptions should not be upheld on technical grounds where the pleadings, read as a whole, set out the essential elements of the claim. The requirement of publication was adequately pleaded, and the defendant would have the opportunity to challenge the evidence at trial. The court dismissed all exceptions and ordered the defendant to pay the costs, including those of senior counsel.

Court Disposition

All exceptions dismissed. Costs awarded against the defendant, including costs of senior counsel.

Orders

  • All exceptions are dismissed.
  • Defendant to pay the costs, including the costs of senior counsel.