South Africa Case Law

Featherby v Zulu (D2963/2016)

Featherby v Zulu (D2963/2016) [2021] ZAKZDHC 2 (29 January 2021)

Court

Kwazulu-Natal High Court, Durban

Case number

D2963/2016

Judge

Steyn

The court found that the defendant authored and distributed statements that, on an objective reading, were defamatory of the plaintiff, suggesting corruption and unethical conduct. The statements were made without factual foundation and went beyond the defendant's duties as compliance manager. The defence of qualified privilege was rejected because the statements were not relevant to the issues at hand and were unsupported by evidence. The court held that the plaintiff succeeded in proving defamation on a balance of probabilities. In determining quantum, the court considered the limited circu…

Source excerpt

• Defamation
• Qualified Privilege
• General Damages
• Reputation Injury

Matzner and Others v Smith and Another (183/2011)

Matzner and Others v Smith and Another (183/2011) [2013] ZAECPEHC 17 (28 March 2013)

Court

Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth

Case number

183/2011

Judge

N G Beshe

High Court defamation judgment finding a body corporate letter defamatory of three trustees and awarding R10,000 damages to each plaintiff.

• Defamation
• Damages Quantum
• Reputation Injury
• Fiduciary Duties Of Trustees
• Damages
• Reputation

Wolmarans v Motsi (78/2009)

Wolmarans v Motsi (78/2009) [2011] ZANWHC 93 (7 July 2011)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

78/2009

Judge

N Gutta

Default judgment for defamation over a radio broadcast, with the court awarding the plaintiff R80,000 in damages and costs.

• Defamation
• Damages Quantification
• Publication Of Defamatory Statement
• Animo Iniuriandi
• Reputation Injury
• Damages-quantification

Maake v Tabane (9/97)

Maake v Tabane (9/97) [2000] ZANWHC 3 (3 February 2000)

Court

North West High Court, Mafikeng

Case number

9/97

Judges

Nkabinde, Khumalo

The court found that the plaintiff was seduced by the defendant under a promise of marriage, resulting in the loss of her virginity and subsequent injury to her reputation and prospects. The defendant's denial of the plaintiff's virginity was unfounded, and his conduct in repudiating the promise to marry was unjustified. The trial magistrate's award of damages was excessive and not properly exercised; the appellate court reduced the damages to R6,000 for seduction and R4,000 for breach of promise, considering the plaintiff's social standing, the extent of her emotional injury, comparable awar…

Source excerpt

• Seduction
• Breach Of Promise To Marry
• Quantum Of Damages
• Reputation Injury