This document is 378.4 KB. Do you want to load it?
Cited documents 12
Judgment
9|
Reported
|
|
Reported
Alleged breach of section 89(2)(c) of the Electoral Act — publication of false information to influence outcome of election — alleged breach of Electoral Code of Conduct — defence of fair comment — opinion — sections 16 and 19 of the Constitution — freedom of expression — right to vote — right to free and fair elections — does section 89(2)(c) of Electoral Act apply to a statement of opinion or does it apply only to statements of fact? — analysis of case law on fair comment — penal provisions to be interpreted restrictively — was published statement false? — statement that “the Nkandla report shows how Zuma stole your money to build his R246m home” held to be opinion and not statement of fact and not to breach section 89(2)(c) of Electoral Act — appeal from Electoral Court to Supreme Court of Appeal competent — leave to appeal granted — appeal upheld — decision of Electoral Court set aside. |
|
Defamation – defences – lack of animus iniuriandi – whether |
|
Under the common law a mandate is in general terminable at the will of |
|
Civil Procedure – motion proceedings – parties to define and court |
|
Interim interdict pending final interdict and damages claim – |
Act
2|
Citizenship and Immigration
·
Education
·
Environment, Climate and Wildlife
·
Health and Food Safety
·
Human Rights
·
International Law
·
Labour and Employment
·
Public administration
|
|
Finance and Money
|
Government Notice
1Documents citing this one 7
Judgment
7|
Defamation – application proceedings – relief directed at compensating the claimant for harm caused by publication of defamatory material – such relief, whether damages, an apology or a retraction cannot be claimed in motion proceedings where there are disputes of fact, but requires evidence to be led. Discretion of judge in granting relief in defamation case – factors to be taken into account Interpretation of allegedly defamatory material – approach of reasonable reader – statement that findings had been made in judgment of the existence of strong evidence of corruption – thrust of defamation lies in the implication of corruption, not that it was a finding by a judge – respondent leading evidence of corruption – such evidence relevant to support possible defences of truth and public interest or privilege – no order can be made in motion proceedings where respondent produces evidence in support of the existence of a defence. |
|
Civil procedure – interim interdictory relief – jurisdiction – alleged defamatory statement published on the Internet accessed in South Africa - whether the appellant was entitled to interim interdictory relief as sought in the high court – whether the high court correctly found that it lacked jurisdiction – whether it was appropriate to order additional security for costs – appeal dismissed
|
|
Practice – defamation claims – whether declaratory and interdictory relief can be sought on motion with a prayer to refer a claim for damages to oral evidence in the event that declaratory relief is granted – such a hybrid procedure available in principle in exceptional cases – exceptional cases are those where there are no disputes of fact underlying the primary defamation claim and where there is no prejudice to the respondent in adopting the hybrid procedure.
Defamation – defences – truth and public benefit – public benefit analysis requires the evaluation of any confidentiality interests that may be affected by the publication of a true fact – a rape complainant’s interest in confidentiality will generally weigh against reporting the fact of the complaint and the identity of the suspect at a very early stage of the investigation.
|
|
Urgent proceedings – application for an interim interdict prohibiting a media house and journalists from referring to them as members of the ‘Alex Mafia,’ pending an action to be instituted – Abuse of court process – factors considered – urgency where there is none, altering case in reply, purpose of relief is to improperly punish and to make examples of the respondents, multiple other media houses published pieces along the same lines yet no interdict was sought against them, such publications remain online, the relief, if granted, would be ineffectual - Principles applicable to judicial prior restraint orders (‘gagging orders’) restated – Punitive costs order granted. |