Media 24 (Pty) Ltd v Nhleko and another
| Jurisdiction | http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa |
| Judge | Nicholls JA, Gorven JA, Hughes JA, Goosen JA and Unterhalter AJA |
| Judgment Date | 29 May 2023 |
| Docket Number | 109/22 |
| Hearing Date | 29 May 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of Appeal |
Nicholls JA (Gorven, Hughes and Goosen JA and Unterhalter AJA concurring):
This appeal concerns the dismissal of an application to amend a plea. On 27 November 2016, Media 24 (Pty) Ltd (Media 24) published an article on the front page of the City Press Newspaper, under the heading 'Nhleko's R30 m blessing.' The article stated that Mr Nkosinathi Nhleko (Mr Nhleko), who was the Minister of Police at the time, had been 'implicated for signing off millions of rands for work done by his love interest – and for going all out to reinstate charges against Ipid head Robert McBride.' The love interest was
2023 JDR 1782 p3
Nicholls JA (Gorven, Hughes and Goosen JA and Unterhalter AJA concurring)
a reference to his partner, Dr Nomcebo Mthembu (Dr Mthembu), who according to the article, 'scored more than R30 million for providing services which the police ministry officials claim that they could have received for free.' The article stated that the police ministry paid R30.8 million to Indoni, the non-profit organisation run by Dr Mthembu.
Mr Nhleko and Dr Mthembu sued for defamation claiming R15 million each, for damages which they allegedly suffered. Media 24 admitted the publication of the article but denied the meaning attributed to it, and that it was defamatory. In the alternative, Media 24 pleaded that it had established the defences of (a) truth in the public interest; (b) protected comment; and (c) reasonable publication.
In response to the plea, Mr Nhleko and Dr Mthembu filed a rule 30A notice, in terms of the uniform rules of court, objecting to the plea on the grounds that it constituted a bare denial, it was evasive, and did not clearly and concisely state the material facts on which Media 24 relied for its defence. It was further alleged that the plea did not answer the point of substance and did not comply with the uniform rules of court. In order to address some of the objections, Media 24 filed a notice of intention to amend its plea. Again, an objection was raised in which it was asserted that the proposed amendment was an 'elaborate lie with the sole purpose of misleading the court' and was an 'insult to the integrity and intelligence' of Mr Nhleko and Dr Mthembu. It was contended that Media 24 had failed to justify statements in the article. This led Media 24 to bring an application for leave to amend. This was opposed.
2023 JDR 1782 p4
Nicholls JA (Gorven, Hughes and Goosen JA and Unterhalter AJA concurring)
The Western Cape Division of the High Court, Cape Town (high court), per Thulare AJ, after an extensive analysis of the pleadings and the objection, stated that the case was premised on two points, namely the role, if any, played by Mr Nhleko in regard to the payment of more than R30 million, and the payment itself. The court then went on to conclude that '[t]his mast of direct involvement of [Mr Nhleko] hoisted in the article, in giving Indoni the work, appear to have been blown away by the winds of a change of front by [Media 24] in its plea.' The high court found that the 'bleeding edge' of the article was the payment to his love interest, whilst the 'chase' was the payment and Media 24 had failed 'to cut to the chase'.
The high court gave the following order:
Leave to effect the amendment to the Applicant's plea on the furnished particulars of amendment as envisaged in this notice of motion is not authorized.
The Applicant is granted leave to make consequential adjustments to the furnished particulars of amendment of the plea as envisaged in this notice of motion.
The Applicant is granted leave to deliver its consequential adjusted particulars of amendment of the plea within twenty (20) days of this order.
The Applicant to pay the costs, including costs occasioned by any consequential adjusted particulars of the plea.'
The high court granted leave to appeal to this Court. Mr Nhleko and Dr Mthembu have not participated in the appeal. Their attorneys, as did those of Media 24, indicated that they had no objection to the matter being disposed of in terms of s 19(a) of the Superior Courts Act 10 of 2013, without an oral hearing.
2023 JDR 1782 p5
Nicholls JA (Gorven, Hughes and Goosen JA and Unterhalter AJA concurring)
In its judgment granting leave to appeal to this Court, the high court stated that the substantive issue was whether Media 24 could plead a bare denial in a defamation case involving an admitted publication of an alleged payment in the first page headline of a leading Sunday paper. It explained its reasoning thus in paragraphs 11 and 12:
'In my view, a bare denial should not...
To continue reading
Request your trial