Tshivhase v Nel (38617/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 16 (11 February 2014)

Tshivhase v Nel (38617/2011) [2014] ZAGPPHC 16 (11 February 2014)

The court held that the statement complained of, when read in its natural and ordinary meaning, is not reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning to a reasonable reader of ordinary intelligence. The plaintiff did not plead innuendo, and the context of liquidation proceedings, which are subject to judicial and administrative oversight, precludes any implication of unlawful conduct. The metaphorical use of 'hijack' does not, in this context, imply dishonesty or unprofessional conduct. Accordingly, the exception is upheld, and the plaintiff's particulars of claim must be amended to remove the cause of complaint.

Citation
[2014] ZAGPPHC 16
Parties
Applicant: NA Tshivhase; Respondent: JA Nel
Court
North Gauteng High Court, Pretoria
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
11 February 2014
Case Number
38617/2011
Procedural Posture
Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim
Outcome
Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff ordered to amend particulars of claim.
Judges
C Pretorius
Legal Topics
Defamation, Pleadings Exception, Natural and Ordinary Meaning, Innuendo
Delict Civil Procedure Defamation Pleadings Exception Natural and Ordinary Meaning Innuendo

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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

NA Tshivhase

Applicant

JA Nel

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Exception Application / Exception to Particulars of Claim

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement made by the defendant in a replying affidavit is defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the plaintiff's particulars of claim disclose a cause of action for defamation in the absence of innuendo.
  3. 3 Whether the words complained of are reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning to a reasonable reader.

Ratio Decidendi

The court held that the statement complained of, when read in its natural and ordinary meaning, is not reasonably capable of conveying a defamatory meaning to a reasonable reader of ordinary intelligence. The plaintiff did not plead innuendo, and the context of liquidation proceedings, which are subject to judicial and administrative oversight, precludes any implication of unlawful conduct. The metaphorical use of 'hijack' does not, in this context, imply dishonesty or unprofessional conduct. Accordingly, the exception is upheld, and the plaintiff's particulars of claim must be amended to remove the cause of complaint.

Court Disposition

Exception upheld with costs; plaintiff ordered to amend particulars of claim.

Orders

  • The exception is upheld with costs.
  • The plaintiff is ordered to remove the cause of complaint by amending his particulars of claim within 10 days of this order.