Letsoenyo v Moorcroft (Appeal)

• Jurisdiction: http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa
• Judge: Molitsoane J and Van Rhyn J
• Judgment Date: 18 August 2023
• Citation: 2023 JDR 3218 (GP)
• Hearing Date: 24 July 2023
• Docket Number: A8/2023
• Court: Free State Division, Bloemfontein

Molitsoane J:

[1]

The Appellant launched an appeal against the whole judgment and order granted by the Honourable Magistrate O.R. Majosi on 18 OCTOBER 2022. The appeal has lapsed and the Appellant seeks an order for condonation and reinstatement of the appeal. The application is opposed.

2023 JDR 3218 p2

Molitsoane J

[2]

The Plaintiff and defendant are high-ranking police officers in the South African Police Service. The Respondent was at the time of the institution of the claim serving under the command of the plaintiff.

[3]

During 2019 the defendant laid criminal charges of crimen injuria, defamation, and intimidation against the plaintiff. Shortly thereafter the plaintiff was notified by the investigating officer of the charges against him through the unit’s work email. Various other staff members have access to the email address used. The National Prosecuting Authority declined to prosecute. The defendant thereafter lodged a further complaint with the Human Rights Commission.

[4]

The essence of the gripe of the plaintiff is that the defendant published defamatory false statements against him alleging that the plaintiff racially discriminated against him and further that the SAPS protected him and failed to discipline him. He was of the view that his reputation was tarnished and that the allegations put him in bad light against his seniors and subordinates.

[5]

On the other hand, the defendant alleges that the plaintiff had said to him, “it is true that what that news clip guy from the DA said in the news clip today about you people with leadership [1] .” When the utterances were made he had no clue what the plaintiff meant. Later in the evening he conducted a research and found an article about the DA and coloureds not being competent to be in leadership positions. This finding triggered the chain of events that led to these proceedings. Because of the finding I later make, it is unnecessary to traverse the whole path leading to the alleged cause of action, in this case, save to deal with the events regarding the condonation application and its reinstatement.

[6]

The chronology of events as set out in the application for condonation and reinstatement indicates the following:

2023 JDR 3218 p3

Molitsoane J

a)

That the judgment was delivered by the Court a quo on 18 October 2022;

b)

That the Appellant noted his appeal within 20 days as prescribed by the Rules of the Magistrate Court;

c)

That the Appellant applied to the Registrar in writing for the allocation of a hearing date within 40 days as required by Rule 50(4) of the Uniform Rules;

d)

That the Appellant failed/omitted to file the record with the application for allocation of a hearing date as required by Uniform Rule 50(7);

e)

That on 17 January 2023, the Appellant filed part of the record of the proceedings of the Court a quo.

[7]

The Appellant concedes that he failed to comply with Rule 50(4). His explanation for non-compliance is that his attorneys could not find the digital recording from the Court in order to hand over the same to the transcribers. That on 13 January 2023 contact was made with the transcribers who...