Church of Scientology in SA Incorporated Association Not for Gain and Another v Reader's Digest Association SA (Pty) Ltd

• Jurisdiction: South Africa
• Judge: Van den Heever J
• Judgment Date: 01 August 1980
• Citation: 1980 (4) SA 313 (C)
• Court: Cape Provincial Division

Van den Heever J:

First applicant is an association not for gain H incorporated in South Africa. As its name shows, it calls itself a church. Its main object, in terms of its memorandum of association, is:

"To worship and administer, and to propagate, in accordance with the Church creed and conditions as set forth hereunder, the religious faith, doctrines and practice of scientology including the enhancement of the spiritual welfare and the promotion of the interests of the adherents of scientology."

Second applicant is described as a religious non-profit corporation registered in the State of California, United States of America.

Both are represented in these proceedings by a Mr Cook. He is the

Van den Heever J

chief administrative officer of the first applicant, and says he was authorised telephonically to represent also second applicant. This A authorisation was initially questioned. Respondent however did not press the point when applicants offered to provide written proof but required a postponement in order to do so. I accordingly accept that both applicants are properly before the Court.

Mr Cook filed two affidavits with annexures (and a certificate of urgency) B in support of a notice of motion. This prayed orders interdicting respondent permanently, failing which temporarily, pending the outcome of further proceedings, either on affidavit or by way of action, to obtain a permanent interdict preventing respondent from publishing an article called "Scientology - Anatomy of a Frightening Cult".

Applicants not only had wind of respondent's intention to include this in C the May edition of its monthly magazine, the "Reader's Digest", but were in possession of a copy which they annexed to their papers. The order originally prayed went further and claimed the destruction of the entire May issue of the magazine. Applicants did not persist in this prayer, nor in the main claim for a permanent interdict. The first alternative, for a D rule nisi operating as a temporary interdict, died a natural death since respondent opposed the application as soon as it was launched. All that applicant sought at the hearing, was a temporary interdict pending the outcome of an action to obtain permanent suppression of the article.

The application was refused. Judgment was reserved as to costs since I wished to consider whether they should stand over for determination in a E trial, as was done in, inter alia, Roberts v The Critic Ltd and Others 1919 WLD 26 at 31. For various reasons such a ruling would not in my view be proper. Amongst others is the fact that applicants conceded at the hearing that the prayers in their notice of motion went far beyond what is reasonable. Respondent was entitled to oppose the destruction of the F entire May issue of its magazine and is entitled to a present award of costs. The reasons for refusing the temporary interdict follow.

The documents were prepared in haste. Perhaps because of this, many issues were raised which are impossible to decide on affidavit. Many of these are in any event irrelevant to the present application, however relevant they may be in an action for damages based on defamation. The only cardinal G matter in dispute which to my mind requires decision forthwith is as to applicant's legal nature judged by its objects. Respondent denied that the Church of Scientology propagates any religion at all. Applicants countered with, inter alia, a lengthy apologia by a deponent who describes himself as "head and Prof in Dept of Science of Religion, University of Durban-Westville". He concludes that

H "scientology... should receive recognition as a religious body and be treated in the same manner as a recognised church".

For present purposes I propose to do so.

I quote the offending article in full:

[The learned Judge then quoted the article and proceeded.]

The article is written in emotive language. Methvin's "communicative skills" are themselves not inconsiderable. He clearly aims at holding up to disapproval and derision Ron Hubbard, the operating methods of certain scientology officials in America and the thinking of adherents of

Van den Heever J

scientology ("Hubbard's bizarre 'philosophy'"). The only reference to the South African situation is in the boxed preface between the title and the body of the article.

A Stripped of all detail, illustration, and emotive language, the article pares down to the following:

1. (a)

Hubbard decided to start his own religion with a view to amassing a personal fortune.

(b)

He has succeeded in doing so, and lives like a capricious, pampered despot, whose wealth continues to increase.

(c)

B He has lied about his qualificawjons and achievements, is dishonest and perhaps unbalanced.

2.

According to Hubbare's teaching:

(a)

Humans are material manifestations of eternal spirits who are repectedly reincarnated.

(b)

C Our earthly troubles often result from painful...