Suleman v Ashoms (27341/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 696 (10 July 2024)

Suleman v Ashoms (27341/2021) [2024] ZAGPJHC 696 (10 July 2024)

The court found that the defendant's social media publications were defamatory of the plaintiff and his ministry. The plaintiff's uncontested evidence established that the statements were wrongful and damaging to his reputation. The court applied established principles of South African defamation law, noting that damages in such cases are compensatory rather than punitive and must be proportionate to the harm suffered. The court considered the plaintiff's standing, the widespread circulation of the defamatory statements, and the absence of any apology from the defendant. The claim for R10 million was found to be excessive and unsupported by precedent. The court awarded R35,000 in damages,...

Citation
[2024] ZAGPJHC 696
Parties
Plaintiff: Apostle Johnson Suleman; Defendant: Solomon Ashoms
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 July 2024
Case Number
27341/2021
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Default Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages awarded. Retraction and apology ordered.
Judges
Ford
Legal Topics
Defamation, Social Media Publication, Quantum of Damages, Apology as Remedy
Delict Defamation Social Media Publication Quantum of Damages Apology as Remedy

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

Parties

Apostle Johnson Suleman

Plaintiff

Solomon Ashoms

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Default Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's social media publications constituted defamation against the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and an apology for the defamatory statements.
  3. 3 What is the appropriate quantum of damages for the defamation committed.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's social media publications were defamatory of the plaintiff and his ministry. The plaintiff's uncontested evidence established that the statements were wrongful and damaging to his reputation. The court applied established principles of South African defamation law, noting that damages in such cases are compensatory rather than punitive and must be proportionate to the harm suffered. The court considered the plaintiff's standing, the widespread circulation of the defamatory statements, and the absence of any apology from the defendant. The claim for R10 million was found to be excessive and unsupported by precedent. The court awarded R35,000 in damages,...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Damages awarded. Retraction and apology ordered.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R35,000 as damages for publishing defamatory allegations.
  • The defendant is ordered to retract the defamatory publications within 21 days of this order.