Susanna v Clicks Group Ltd t/a Click Stores and Another (A 3102/2011) [2015] ZAGPJHC 114 (10 June 2015)

Susanna v Clicks Group Ltd t/a Click Stores and Another (A 3102/2011) [2015] ZAGPJHC 114 (10 June 2015)

The court found that the second respondent failed to establish reasonable grounds for suspecting the appellant of shoplifting. The evidence did not support the version that the appellant placed any store item in her handbag at the till, nor did it justify the subsequent search of her handbag. The defence of reasonable suspicion was rejected, and the court held that negligence suffices as the fault requirement in this category of defamation and iniuria, given the constitutional rights to dignity and privacy. The second respondent's conduct amounted to an actionable iniuria, and the employer was vicariously liable. However, the appellant failed to prove publication to third parties, so the...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 114
Parties
Appellant: Pieterse, Esther Susanna; Respondent: Clicks Group Ltd t/a Click Stores; Respondent: Mello, Tracy
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
10 June 2015
Case Number
A 3102/2011
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal upheld in respect of the claim for iniuria. The order of the court a quo is substituted with an order for damages and costs against the respondents.
Judges
Spilg, Mlonzi
Legal Topics
Defamation, Iniuria, Shoplifting Accusation, Vicarious Liability, Reasonable Suspicion, Quantum of Damages
Delict Land and Property Defamation Iniuria Shoplifting Accusation Vicarious Liability Reasonable Suspicion Quantum of 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 25 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Pieterse, Esther Susanna

Appellant

Clicks Group Ltd t/a Click Stores

Respondent

Mello, Tracy

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrates' Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the words and conduct of the second respondent amounted to defamation or iniuria.
  2. 2 Whether the second respondent had reasonable grounds to suspect the appellant of shoplifting.
  3. 3 Whether the search of the appellant's handbag was lawful and justified.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the second respondent failed to establish reasonable grounds for suspecting the appellant of shoplifting. The evidence did not support the version that the appellant placed any store item in her handbag at the till, nor did it justify the subsequent search of her handbag. The defence of reasonable suspicion was rejected, and the court held that negligence suffices as the fault requirement in this category of defamation and iniuria, given the constitutional rights to dignity and privacy. The second respondent's conduct amounted to an actionable iniuria, and the employer was vicariously liable. However, the appellant failed to prove publication to third parties, so the...

Court Disposition

Appeal upheld in respect of the claim for iniuria. The order of the court a quo is substituted with an order for damages and costs against the respondents.

Orders

  • The first and second defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff R25,000, the one paying the other to be absolved.
  • The first and second defendants are to pay the costs of suit on the Magistrates’ Court party and party scale.