Tshaka v Vellem and Another (2/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 67 (23 August 2016)

Tshaka v Vellem and Another (2/2016) [2016] ZAECGHC 67 (23 August 2016)

The court found that the magistrate correctly assessed both the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondents made the alleged defamatory statements. The evidence was mutually destructive, and the probabilities did not favour the appellant's version over the respondents'. The magistrate's findings were unassailable, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Additionally, the court found that the respondents' attorneys, Zepe and Company, withdrew at a late stage without proper compliance with the rules, causing the postponement of the appeal. The wasted costs occasioned by the postponement were...

Citation
[2016] ZAECGHC 67
Parties
Appellant: Shadrack Tshaka; Respondent: Thandi Vellem; Respondent: Wandile Vellem
Court
Eastern Cape High Court, Grahamstown
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
23 August 2016
Case Number
2/2016
Procedural Posture
Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment
Outcome
Appeal dismissed with costs. Wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the appeal ordered against Zepe and Company de bonis propriis.
Judges
G H Bloem, J D Pickering
Legal Topics
Defamation, Onus of Proof, Mutually Destructive Versions, Assessment of Evidence
Delict Defamation Onus of Proof Mutually Destructive Versions Assessment of Evidence

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 5 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shadrack Tshaka

Appellant

Thandi Vellem

Respondent

Wandile Vellem

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Civil Appeal / Appeal From Magistrate's Court Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the respondents made the alleged defamatory statements at the public meeting.
  2. 2 Whether the appellant discharged the onus of proof in respect of the alleged defamation.
  3. 3 Whether the magistrate correctly assessed the credibility and probabilities of the evidence.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the magistrate correctly assessed both the credibility of the witnesses and the probabilities of the case. The appellant failed to discharge the onus of proving that the respondents made the alleged defamatory statements. The evidence was mutually destructive, and the probabilities did not favour the appellant's version over the respondents'. The magistrate's findings were unassailable, and the appeal was dismissed with costs. Additionally, the court found that the respondents' attorneys, Zepe and Company, withdrew at a late stage without proper compliance with the rules, causing the postponement of the appeal. The wasted costs occasioned by the postponement were...

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed with costs. Wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the appeal ordered against Zepe and Company de bonis propriis.

Orders

  • The appeal is dismissed with costs.
  • Zepe and Company are ordered to pay the wasted costs occasioned by the postponement of the appeal on 6 May 2016 de bonis propriis.