Young v Boqwa (22161/2003) [2005] ZAGPHC 327 (28 September 2005)

Young v Boqwa (22161/2003) [2005] ZAGPHC 327 (28 September 2005)

The court found that the statement authorised by the defendant, that the plaintiff's withdrawal from the proceedings could be seen as cowardly, was not defamatory. The statement did not convey to reasonable people an impairment of the plaintiff's reputation, as it merely expressed that some people may hold such a view, while others may consider the withdrawal justified. The court held that the statement was ill-considered and made at an inopportune moment, but this did not render it defamatory. The plaintiff failed to prove that the statement was defamatory or that it supported the pleaded innuendo. Consequently, it was unnecessary to consider the defences of fair comment or statutory...

Citation
[2005] ZAGPHC 327
Parties
Plaintiff: Richard Michael Moberly Young; Defendant: Selby Alan Masibonge Boqwa
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
28 September 2005
Case Number
22161/2003
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.
Judges
Smit
Legal Topics
Defamation, Public Protector Immunity, Fair Comment, Damages
Delict Defamation Public Protector Immunity Fair Comment 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 3 Authorities cited 3 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Michael Moberly Young

Plaintiff

Selby Alan Masibonge Boqwa

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statement authorised by the defendant was defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 If defamatory, whether the statement amounted to fair comment.
  3. 3 If defamatory, whether the defendant is exonerated from liability by virtue of the Public Protector Act.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statement authorised by the defendant, that the plaintiff's withdrawal from the proceedings could be seen as cowardly, was not defamatory. The statement did not convey to reasonable people an impairment of the plaintiff's reputation, as it merely expressed that some people may hold such a view, while others may consider the withdrawal justified. The court held that the statement was ill-considered and made at an inopportune moment, but this did not render it defamatory. The plaintiff failed to prove that the statement was defamatory or that it supported the pleaded innuendo. Consequently, it was unnecessary to consider the defences of fair comment or statutory...

Court Disposition

Plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The plaintiff's claim is dismissed with costs.