Young v Shaikh (10646/01) [2003] ZAWCHC 50; 2004 (3) SA 46 (C) (26 September 2003)

Young v Shaikh (10646/01) [2003] ZAWCHC 50; 2004 (3) SA 46 (C) (26 September 2003)

The court found that the statements made by the defendant during the televised interview were defamatory of the plaintiff, as they accused him of lying, dishonesty, and disgraceful conduct. The defence of fair comment was not pursued and, in any event, was not available given the nature of the statements and the absence of any factual basis for the allegations. The apology tendered in the plea and in evidence was not adequate to remedy the harm caused, given the wide dissemination of the defamatory statements and the limited reach of the apology. The court rejected the argument that a published apology would serve the interests of justice in this case, emphasizing that freedom of...

Citation
[2003] ZAWCHC 50
Parties
Plaintiff: Richard Michael Moberly Young; Defendant: Yunis Shaikh
Court
Western Cape High Court, Cape Town
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
26 September 2003
Case Number
10646/01
Procedural Posture
Civil Trial / Judgment
Outcome
Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay damages, interest, and costs.
Judges
NEL
Legal Topics
Defamation, Damages for Injury to Reputation, Fair Comment Defence, Apology in Defamation, Freedom of Expression
Delict Defamation Damages for Injury to Reputation Fair Comment Defence Apology in Defamation Freedom of Expression

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 4 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Richard Michael Moberly Young

Plaintiff

Yunis Shaikh

Defendant

Procedural Posture

Civil Trial / Judgment

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the statements made by the defendant during a televised interview were defamatory of the plaintiff.
  2. 2 Whether the defence of fair comment was available to the defendant.
  3. 3 Whether an apology tendered in the plea and in evidence was sufficient to remedy the harm caused.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the statements made by the defendant during the televised interview were defamatory of the plaintiff, as they accused him of lying, dishonesty, and disgraceful conduct. The defence of fair comment was not pursued and, in any event, was not available given the nature of the statements and the absence of any factual basis for the allegations. The apology tendered in the plea and in evidence was not adequate to remedy the harm caused, given the wide dissemination of the defamatory statements and the limited reach of the apology. The court rejected the argument that a published apology would serve the interests of justice in this case, emphasizing that freedom of...

Court Disposition

Judgment for the plaintiff. Defendant ordered to pay damages, interest, and costs.

Orders

  • Defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff the amount of R150,000.
  • Defendant is ordered to pay interest a tempore morae at the prescribed rate of 15.5% per annum from the date of service of summons to date of payment.