Van Der Westhuizen v Ntshabele (2014/27063) [2015] ZAGPJHC 51 (20 March 2015)

Van Der Westhuizen v Ntshabele (2014/27063) [2015] ZAGPJHC 51 (20 March 2015)

The court found that the defendant's statements, made in the presence of co-workers and members of the public, were per se defamatory and intended to humiliate and belittle the plaintiff. The words imputed dishonesty, racism, and lack of intelligence, which seriously infringed the plaintiff's dignity and reputation, especially given her position as human resources manager. The defendant's conduct was wrongful and intentional, and no defence or apology was offered. The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of hate speech and the absence of an apology, and determined that a substantial but not excessive award was justified. The court awarded R50,000 in damages and costs to...

Citation
[2015] ZAGPJHC 51
Parties
Plaintiff: Nadia van der Westhuizen; Defendant: Morgan Motlogelwa Ntshabele
Court
South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
20 March 2015
Case Number
2014/27063
Procedural Posture
Civil Action / Final Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim for damages for defamation is upheld. Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff.
Judges
P Boruchowitz
Legal Topics
Defamation, Injury to Dignity, Hate Speech, Quantification of Damages
Delict Defamation Injury to Dignity Hate Speech Quantification 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 6 Authorities cited 7 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Nadia van der Westhuizen

Plaintiff

Morgan Motlogelwa Ntshabele

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Action / Final Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the defendant's statements constituted defamation against the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the statements infringed the plaintiff's dignity (dignitas) and reputation (fama).
  3. 3 What quantum of damages is appropriate for the harm suffered.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the defendant's statements, made in the presence of co-workers and members of the public, were per se defamatory and intended to humiliate and belittle the plaintiff. The words imputed dishonesty, racism, and lack of intelligence, which seriously infringed the plaintiff's dignity and reputation, especially given her position as human resources manager. The defendant's conduct was wrongful and intentional, and no defence or apology was offered. The court considered aggravating factors, including the use of hate speech and the absence of an apology, and determined that a substantial but not excessive award was justified. The court awarded R50,000 in damages and costs to...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim for damages for defamation is upheld. Judgment is granted in favour of the plaintiff.

Orders

  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff R50,000 as compensation.
  • The defendant is ordered to pay the plaintiff's costs.