LPL4802 ASSIGNMENT 1 SEMESTER 1 2023
THERE ARE 3 VERSIONS OF ANSWERS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT
,Study the case of Economic Freedom Fighters and others v Manuel 2021 (3)
SA 425 (SCA) and answer the question below:
In para [92], the court exclaimed [sic], “An unliquidated claim for damages
must be pursued by institution of an action.” However, contrary to this
accepted practice, the attorneys for the respondent brought the claim of
damages for defamation in an application proceeding. Discuss fully, the
reasons the court puts forward in support of accepted practice, that general
damages for defamation must be instituted in an action proceeding. Refer to
relevant case law and legislation in your answer.
,VERSION 1
The SCA affirmed a High Court decision that a political party had
defamed aformer politician by labeling him "corrupt and nepotistic" and
referring to theprocedure over which he presided as "secretive." The
former politician petitioned the High Court after the publication of a
statement on Twitter by his political party, alleging that the statement
was untrue and detrimental to his image. Although the High Court found
that the political party did not have a defense to the statement's
publishing, it noted that the defense of reasonable publication, which
had previously been limited to media defendants, was now open to non-
media defendants as well.
On March 27, 2019, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) of South Africa
released a statement through their official Twitter account. The
statement accused former South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel
of nepotism, corruption, and covert behavior in the selection of the South
African Revenue Service Commissioner (SARS). Manuel recused himself
from interviewing one of the applicants, Edward Kieswetter, since
Kieswetter had previously worked at SARS during Manuel's tenure as
Finance Minister. Kieswetter was subsequently selected as the favored
choice by the panel and became SARS Commissioner. The tweeted
statement characterized the procedure as "patently nepotistic and
corrupt" and done in private, and referred to Kieswetter as "not only a
close business colleague and buddy of Trevor Manuel." Additionally, it
said that Kieswetter had a "obvious link to the white capitalist elite,"
implying that he would not maximize tax collection
At the time the statement was posted, the EFF's Twitter account had
over 725 000 followers, and the tweet containing the message had
been retweeted 237 times.
Julius Malema, the EFF's President, tweeted the remark from his own
nearly 2million-follower Twitter account. Additionally, the tweet and
statement garnered media and internet attention. Manuel requested an
urgent declaratory judgment, claiming that the tweet was defamatory,
false, and illegal, and that the order was required to defend his
reputation, after unsuccessfully asking the EFF to remove the statement.
He also sought an order compelling the EFF to remove the tweet from all
of its media platforms, prohibiting the EFF and its associated platforms
, from publishing similar or identical allegations against him in the future,
and compelling the EFF to publish a "unconditional public retraction and
apology."
THERE ARE 3 VERSIONS OF ANSWERS INCLUDED IN THIS DOCUMENT
,Study the case of Economic Freedom Fighters and others v Manuel 2021 (3)
SA 425 (SCA) and answer the question below:
In para [92], the court exclaimed [sic], “An unliquidated claim for damages
must be pursued by institution of an action.” However, contrary to this
accepted practice, the attorneys for the respondent brought the claim of
damages for defamation in an application proceeding. Discuss fully, the
reasons the court puts forward in support of accepted practice, that general
damages for defamation must be instituted in an action proceeding. Refer to
relevant case law and legislation in your answer.
,VERSION 1
The SCA affirmed a High Court decision that a political party had
defamed aformer politician by labeling him "corrupt and nepotistic" and
referring to theprocedure over which he presided as "secretive." The
former politician petitioned the High Court after the publication of a
statement on Twitter by his political party, alleging that the statement
was untrue and detrimental to his image. Although the High Court found
that the political party did not have a defense to the statement's
publishing, it noted that the defense of reasonable publication, which
had previously been limited to media defendants, was now open to non-
media defendants as well.
On March 27, 2019, the Economic Freedom Fighters (EFF) of South Africa
released a statement through their official Twitter account. The
statement accused former South African Finance Minister Trevor Manuel
of nepotism, corruption, and covert behavior in the selection of the South
African Revenue Service Commissioner (SARS). Manuel recused himself
from interviewing one of the applicants, Edward Kieswetter, since
Kieswetter had previously worked at SARS during Manuel's tenure as
Finance Minister. Kieswetter was subsequently selected as the favored
choice by the panel and became SARS Commissioner. The tweeted
statement characterized the procedure as "patently nepotistic and
corrupt" and done in private, and referred to Kieswetter as "not only a
close business colleague and buddy of Trevor Manuel." Additionally, it
said that Kieswetter had a "obvious link to the white capitalist elite,"
implying that he would not maximize tax collection
At the time the statement was posted, the EFF's Twitter account had
over 725 000 followers, and the tweet containing the message had
been retweeted 237 times.
Julius Malema, the EFF's President, tweeted the remark from his own
nearly 2million-follower Twitter account. Additionally, the tweet and
statement garnered media and internet attention. Manuel requested an
urgent declaratory judgment, claiming that the tweet was defamatory,
false, and illegal, and that the order was required to defend his
reputation, after unsuccessfully asking the EFF to remove the statement.
He also sought an order compelling the EFF to remove the tweet from all
of its media platforms, prohibiting the EFF and its associated platforms
, from publishing similar or identical allegations against him in the future,
and compelling the EFF to publish a "unconditional public retraction and
apology."
