[ad_1]
The Supreme Court of Appeals (SCA) struck down the R500,000 defamation award that former Finance Minister Trevor Manuel won against the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) last year.
On Thursday, the appeals court rejected the EFF’s authorization to appeal the May 2019 findings of the North Gauteng Superior Court that a statement in which it had effectively accused Manuel of nepotism and corruption had been defamatory and illegal, thus as an injunction that was at that time issued against the party.
But he referred the compensation for damages to the Superior Court so that it could hear oral evidence and then reconsider the amount. The originally ordered apology has also been returned to the Superior Court for the same reconsideration.
“The simplistic view appears to have been taken that if victims of defamation on social media were given a quick and easy way to search for and obtain substantial damages in the motion, these types of violations would be quickly stopped.” , Judges Mahomed Navsa and Malcolm Wallis, who drafted the ruling with the concurrence of three judges, said that “we do not agree that the problem can be solved so easily.”
ALSO READ: EFF will appeal the court ruling of the Sars ‘dishonest unit’
Last March, a Twitter war broke out between the EFF and Manuel, after the former issued a statement in response to news that Edward Kieswetter had been selected as the new commissioner of the South African Tax Service (Sars).
In the statement, the party characterized Kieswetter, who was appointed to the position on the recommendation of a panel chaired by Manuel, as a “dubious character” who was “not just a relative of Trevor Manuel, but a close business partner and partner.” and accused Manuel of having previously “illegally” appointed him as deputy commissioner.
Manuel, who vehemently denied the allegations, ended up going to South Gauteng Superior Court, where Judge Elias Matojane ultimately ruled in his favor. The judge ordered the EFF to take note of the statement and apologize, as well as pay R500,000 in damages, which Manuel later indicated that he intended to donate to charity.
After a failed attempt to appeal Matojane’s ruling in Superior Court, the EFF turned to the SCA, where her case was heard last month.
The case was heard only in the documents in the Superior Court and during the arguments in the Supreme Court of Justice, the appellate judges repeatedly suggested that the question of the amount should have referred to the oral evidence or the trial.
Navsa and Wallis said Thursday: “A defendant has the right to challenge that evidence and present compensatory evidence. How else could a court determine an appropriate award? Relevant evidence must be fully presented and explored ”.
Summary for the media: EFF and others v Manuel (711/2020) [2020] ZASCA 172 (December 17, 2020). Consequently, today the Subcommittee on Accreditation granted authorization to appeal in
damages and upheld the appeal against said award. pic.twitter.com/OvPSXiZnOz– Supreme Court of Appeals ZA (@SCA_ZA) December 17, 2020
For more news your way, download The Citizen app iOS and Android.
[ad_2]
