Rabe v Marais (Appeal)
| Jurisdiction | http://justis.com/jurisdiction/166,South Africa |
| Judge | Roelofse AJ and Gumede AJ |
| Judgment Date | 13 September 2023 |
| Citation | 2023 JDR 3436 (MN) |
| Hearing Date | 02 June 2023 |
| Docket Number | A81/2022 |
| Court | Mpumalanga Division, Mbombela |
Gumede AJ:
Appellant appeals against the whole judgment and the order of Magistrate Van Rooyen which was granted on 1 November 2022, in terms of which, the Magistrate ordered the appellant to pay damages in the amount of fifty thousand rand plus interest to each respondent, in an action for defamation.
The facts of this case are largely common cause.
Defamation against the first respondent stems from a letter that the appellant wrote to the Legal Practice Council on 25 February 2019, in which he complained against the first respondent and accused him of having obtained confidential communication by unethical and/or corrupt means and then trying to use this “illegally obtained” documentation to threaten the appellant.
The appellant also published two defamatory statements in respect of the second respondent. The first one was made to the Provincial Commissioner of the Police, Mpumalanga on 4 October 2019 and the second statement was made to Adv KH van Rensburg on 18 October 2019. The fist statement stated that
2023 JDR 3436 p3
Gumede AJ
“I believe my below email reply to my attorney is self-explanatory, as to why I have a serious complaint against the Dullstroom SAPD. I have no doubt that there is a special (corrupt) relationship between the Dullstroom SAPD and Mr Hatting. I know that some of the SAPD members buy meat and “afval” directly from Mr Hatting (he keeps sheep on a farm outside of Dullstroom)”
The second statement consists of a letter written by the appellant to the National Prosecuting Authority which reads as follows:
“The attached supporting documents (letters) gives a clear depiction of the background supporting my complaint against the Emakhazeni State Prosecutor (Jones) for what I believe to be a clear corrupt association between the State Prosecutor (Jones), the Dullstroom SAPD and Mr Hatting.”
. . . . . .
“Considering the circumstances described in the attached letters, it is clear to me, that between Mr Hatting, Dullstroom SAPD and the State Prosecutor lies a corrupt relationship.”
Both respondents alleged that the contents of the above statements were wrongful and defamatory and were understood by the addressees and
2023 JDR 3436 p4
Gumede AJ
intended by the appellant to mean that the respondents were dishonest and corrupt. In the alternative the respondents alleged that the statements carried the additional sting that they are without moral fiber, they are of questionable character and are not trustworthy.
The appellant admitted that he made these statements but denied that the statements were defamatory. In the alternative, he averred that the statements were published on a privileged occasion.
BACKGROUND
The facts which led to these incidents are contained in the judgment a quo and can be summarized as follows:
In 2017, the second respondent moved into a property in Dullstroom, across the home of the appellant and soon brought animals into the property (cattle, sheep, horses).
These animals attracted blue flies which caused nuisance and prompted the appellant to lodge a complaint with Emakhazeni Local Municipality. The Municipality issued a formal notice to the second respondent.
Appellant alleges that when the second respondent received the notice, he threated the appellant’s wife by telling her that she should sleep well at night
2023 JDR 3436 p5
Gumede AJ
and that she should watch her dogs as they have a tendency to get lost or poisoned.
The appellant’s wife is alleged to have reported the incident to the police who are said to have refused to assist her until the intervention of the station commissioner. [1]
Approximately a year later, the appellant and his wife planted trees on their sidewalk and also placed wooden poles between the sidewalk and the road. The second respondent cut off the wooded poles with a chainsaw, leading to his arrest for malicious injury to property but the prosecuting authority declined to prosecute.
This aggrieved the appellant who then wrote the aforesaid letter to the Provincial Police Commissioner and the NPA.
A few weeks after the appellant wrote the...
To continue reading
Request your trial