About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: South Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg
>>
2018
>>
[2018] ZAGPJHC 406
|
|
Mafologele and Others v Mungadze and Another (2018/20052) [2018] ZAGPJHC 406 (14 June 2018)
IN
THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG
LOCAL DIVISION, JOHANNESBURG
CASE NUMBER: 2018/20052
DELETE
WHICHEVER IS NOT APPLICABLE
(1)
REPORTABLE:
NO
(2)
OF
INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3)
REVISED:
In
the application of:
BAFEDILE
MAFOLOGELE
First
Applicant
SAMPADA
PRIVATE EQUITY (PTY) LTD
Second
Applicant
UMTHOMBO
WEALTH (PTY) LTD
Third
Applicant
and
SAMUEL
MUNGADZE
First
Respondent
SOUTH
AFRICAN LOCAL AUTHORITIES PENSION FUND
Second
Respondent
Coram:
WEPENER
J
Heard:
5 June
2018
Delivered:
14 June
2018
Summary:
Interdict:
when requirements for interdict are satisfied, court will order
cessation of publication of clearly defamatory nature
and unlawful
information. Defendant’s defence mere lip-service of well-known
defences and without substance.
JUDGMENT
WEPENER
J:
[1]
This urgent application came before the court on Tuesday 5 June 2018
and an order was granted on 8 June 2018. The issue in this
matter is
the further dissemination of reports by the first respondent of
matters concerning the first, second and third applicants.
[2]
The first applicant is the founder, director and chief executive
officer of both the second and third applicants. The second
applicant
is a private equity and investment management company and registered
as a financial services provider.
[1]
The third applicant is a company associated with the second applicant
and it is mentioned in some of the articles written by the
first
respondent. The second applicant manages assets to the value of
approximately R1,7 billion on behalf of some of the biggest
Retirement Funds in South Africa.
[3]
The first respondent is a journalist by profession and freelance
writer who renders his professional services as a news reporter
to
various media and news outlets in the Republic of South Africa. He
claims that he subscribes to the various ethical codes of
conduct
that regulate all media outlets and journalists in South Africa. He
admits that he was the author and disseminator of the
five articles
which were published and which form the subject of the applicants’
complaint.
[4]
The second respondent is the South African Local Authorities Pension
Fund who has not participated in these proceedings. Allegations
of
impropriety by the applicants are linked to the second respondent and
improper conduct by it or it’s officials. A further
reference
in this judgment to the respondent is to the first respondent.
[5]
It is not disputed that the assets and investments which the
applicant manages have been entrusted to it by parties such as
Pension and Provident Funds, who hold such assets and investments on
behalf of their members. The Funds hold these benefits on
behalf of
millions of employees in the Republic of South Africa. It is also
common cause that the applicants’ main mandate
is to grow the
value of the assets and investments entrusted to it by the various
Pension and Provident Funds. The assets so entrusted
to the second
applicant for growth and management are invested in various companies
whose shares are listed, and they trade, on
the Johannesburg Stock
Exchange. The applicants allege, and the respondents do not dispute,
that the sensitivity of investors on
every stock exchange is such
that any negative perception about asset managers may affect the
performance of such a manager as
well as the assets under their
management on the stock exchange. This is so due to the fact that a
great degree of trust, credibility
and integrity are not only
required but also expected of asset managers. The applicants’
uncontested version is that any
negative allegations regarding them
may result in asset owners transferring their asset management
contracts to other asset managers.
The applicants said that asset
owners are reluctant to do business with asset managers who are
perceived to be corrupt or are perceived
to win business contracts
though corruption, bribery or as a result of having ‘captured’
the relevant decision makers
of investors. The applicants’
allegation that their reputation is of utmost importance in that they
rely on relationships
with financial market data providers who are
important players in the market, are not disputed. These parties will
not do business
with entities and persons who are perceived to be
corrupt and ‘captured’ by decision makers who make
decisions relevant
to the award of business contracts in various
institutions. This is so because the various investors do not wish to
be associated
with entities and people who cause them reputational
harm. It is undisputed that the applicant has perceived that certain
banks
had terminated banking relationships with entities which were
experienced to be capable of causing reputational harm to such banks.
The applicants fear that they face the same risk as a result of the
defamatory allegations published by the first respondent.
Background
[6]
In order to place this matter in its context, it is necessary to set
out the complaints of the applicants regarding the nature
of the
articles complained of in some detail. The respondent, save for
denying the defamatory nature of the allegations, and relying
on
certain defences to which I will return, does not deny the content of
the publication nor that the innuendos alleged by the
applicants were
intended by the first respondent.
The
statements
[7]
Over a period of time the respondent wrote and caused articles to be
published on different media platforms. One of these, City
Press,
contacted the applicants prior to the publication of an article
submitted to it by the respondent. It furnished the applicants
with
lists of questions, seeking answers thereto. The applicants attached
the questions and answers to the founding papers. The
City Press
thereafter refused to publish the article received from the
respondent. Despite this, the respondent caused articles
to be
published in, inter alia, the Independent Online, New African
Gazette, The Citizen and other publications. After the applicants’
attorneys wrote to the respondent during May 2018, and highlighting
many inaccuracies in the articles written by the respondent,
demanding an undertaking that the respondent should refrain from
publishing the articles pending the hearing of an urgent court
application for an interdict, the respondent caused another article
(the fifth article) to be published.
The
first article – published on 29 April 2018.
[8]
In the first article the respondent accused the first applicant and
the second respondent’s erstwhile chairman, Mr Maphanga,
of
‘hatching the plan in which hundreds of million rand were
secured for “private equity” investment in the form
of
“property investment”’. The applicants allege, and
it is not denied, that to the ordinary objective and reasonable
reader of the first article, this suggests that the first applicant
and Maphanga prepared and executed an unlawful plan pursuant
to which
the second respondent’s ‘hundreds of million of rand
were’ invested through the second applicant in
‘property
investments’. The placing of ‘property investment’
was intended to mean, and was understood to
mean or at the very least
to suggest, that the ‘hundreds of million rand’ were in
fact not invested in property investments
and that there are in in
fact no property investments and the said millions have been wasted
and have been misappropriated for
the first applicant’s
personal benefit. It is further alleged that the first applicant
‘flew Maphanga to Barcelona’
to watch a soccer match as
unlawful consideration for him in working with the first applicant to
‘hatch the plan’ referred
to before and executing such
plan and that the first applicant bought ‘a sleek Jeep
Cherokee’ for Maphanga, which to
an ordinary objective reader
suggests that this was a further unlawful consideration to Maphanga
for participating in this plan.
[9]
It is further alleged that the law firm ENS Africa conducted an audit
into the second applicant’s affairs and that such
audit
‘revealed deficiencies in financial reporting’. It is
alleged that it is defamatory due to its falseness. No
‘deficiencies
in financial reporting’ were reported to the applicants by ENS
Africa. It is alleged that an mere suggestion
that the ‘deficiencies
in financial reporting’ were found, is injurious to the
applicants’ names and reputations
in that it portrays them as
those who do not perform their asset management and relevant
reporting obligations properly and are
unable to properly account for
their asset management activities. It then alleged that this, in
turn, could result in asset owners
withdrawing their assets from the
applicants’ management. The article continues that ENS Africa
was denied ‘access
to Sampada (second applicant) information’
to which it was lawfully entitled. The applicant alleges that it
suggests that
the second applicant has committed irregularities in
its financial reporting and that the applicants refused to provide
access
to its financial records for audit purposes.
[10]
The final allegation in the first article is that there are
‘managers’ at ‘SALA’ (the second respondent)
who ‘want to act to recover the money’ from the
applicants. It is further alleged that the allegation that ‘managers
at the fund want to act to recover the money’ suggests to an
ordinary and objective reader and was understood by such reader,
to
mean that the money which the ‘managers at the fund want act to
recover’ was unlawfully taken from SALA by the applicants
and
their continued retention of it is also unlawful, being the reason
why it should be recovered. The applicant alleged that there
could be
no other basis ‘to act to recover the money’ if the
relevant transaction was a lawful one.
The
second article – published on 29 April 2018
[11]
The second article, published on the same date, has the same content
and the applicants complained that they are defamatory
and injurious
for the same reasons as stated in relation to the first article.
The
third article – published on 30 April 2018
[12]
Again, save for the denials of defamation and the defences raised by
the respondent to which I shall return, the allegations
by the
applicants are not in dispute. The third article contains a picture
of the first applicant, which the first applicant states
was used to
create an unnecessary sensation in the article as it shows him whilst
he was visiting Hollywood. It is undisputed that
the picture was in
any event taken of him prior to the second respondent investing in
private equity funds set up by the second
applicant. It completes a
picture of lavishness and money improperly used by the first
applicant.
[13]
The article states that the first applicant has ‘a huge
appetite for power and fast cars’ and that he has ‘captured’
Maphanga. It is then alleged that the words ‘capture’ and
‘captured’ are in South Africa now understood
to refer to
acts of bribery and corruption, in particular in the context which
they were used they were understood by ordinary
objective readers to
mean that the first applicant has corruptly subjected Maphanga to his
influence and control so that the first
applicant can derive
financial benefits from the second respondent through Maphanga,
benefits to which the first applicant is not
lawfully entitled. It is
alleged that this is untrue and defamatory due to the fact that it
suggests that the first applicant is
guilty of bribery and corruption
and that he and the second applicant secured business from the second
respondent through bribery
and corruption, particularly, by
‘capturing’ Maphanga.
[14]
The third article further conveyed that the first applicant had his
‘eyes on the SALA millions’ in order to fulfil
his
dreams. In the context in which this is said in the article, an
ordinary and objective reader understood it to mean that
the first
applicant has unlawful intentions to gain access to the second
respondent’s millions for his benefit and his and
the second
applicant’s benefit and not for the benefit of the second
respondent and that he and the second applicant are
otherwise not
lawfully entitled to that benefit. The third article stated that the
first applicant promised Maphanga ‘massive
commission’.
In the context in which it is stated it was understood by the
ordinary and objective reader to mean that the
first applicant
promised to pay ‘massive bribes’ to Maphanga. The
third article finally contained the averment
that ENS Africa found
evidence of ‘deficiencies in financial reporting, high
management fees and inaccurate manager expense
allocation’.
The
fourth article – 17 May 2018
[15]
This article, which was published in The Citizen Online, alleges that
the Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA) was investigating
allegations of corruption and maladministration at the second
respondent relating to and resulting from the first applicant’s
alleged bribery, corruption and capturing of Maphanga. The
article repeats the allegations referred to above contained in
the
first, second and third articles and continued that the second
respondent entered into ‘a questionable deal to be worth
R340
million’ with the second applicant. There is then an allegation
that managers at the second respondent wanted the funds
to be
returned to the second respondent. The applicants alleged that the
mere suggestion that the applicants were involved in a
‘questionable
deal’ suggests that the relevant deal is unlawful as no lawful
deal can be questionable. It is
alleged that the intention to
conduct the intention of the respondent to defame the applicants is
clear from the fact that he failed
to conduct an independent
investigation into the history of the deal and because he has not
seen the relevant transaction documents.
The first respondent
went on to allege that the deal was a product of a ‘hatched
plan’ which suggests that it was an
unlawful plan.
[16]
The articles further stated:
‘
however
a few months later, the Maphanga – led board replaced by
Financial Services Board with a twenty-six section board
headed by
Jan Mahlangu and Advocate Mathome Thulare’.
In
the context in which it is stated in the first three articles it was
understood by ordinary and objective readers to mean that
the second
respondent’s board was removed or replaced from office as a
direct result of the alleged improper investment into
the second
applicant. It is clear however, that the respondent changed the
allegations in the fourth and fifth articles by stating
that the
board was in fact replaced by the Registrar of Pension Funds as he
became aware that the board had not been properly constituted.
Obviously, this latter change, was as a result of the respondent then
accepting that the latter was the true reason for the replacement
of
the board and not the reasons contained in the first three articles,
namely as a result of improper investment by the board
at the second
applicant. Despite this change, the respondent did not point out that
the first three articles contained wholly incorrect
information. In
both the fourth and fifth articles it is alleged that investigations
by the FSCA were due to allegations of corruption
and
maladministration, yet nothing is said that the FSCA conducts routine
investigations and inspections at Pension Funds but no
such
investigation had been made or suggested by the FSCA.
The
fifth article – 20 May 2018
[17]
The fifth article, in similar terms as the previous articles, was
published in The Sunday Independent and it is alleged that
certain
whistleblowers furnished the information and that these
whistleblowers are said to be senior managers of the second
respondent.
The applicant alleges and it is not denied that the
second respondent has no senior managers in its employ and employs a
principal
officer as the only person in a senior management position.
General
[18]
Save for certain inaccuracies, the respondent alleges that
‘
.
. . in August that year a hastily arranged fund exco meeting sat and
agreed to give Mafologele’s Sambada Private Equity
Fund, R340
million for a proposed “property investment”.’
[19]
It is important to note that regarding each of the allegations of
defamation and the innuendos referred to by the applicants,
the
applicants alleged that the statements are not true, could not have
been published in the public interest and were intended
and did harm
and injure the applicants’ good names, reputation and
character.
Consequences
of the publication
[20]
The applicants allege that, save for a defamatory nature of the
publication, the allegations of bribery, corruption, capturing
and
deficiency in reporting amongst others, which are not true and were
published without evidence to substantiate them. In addition,
to the
defamatory nature thereof, the articles resulted in at least five
investors who, either currently invest with the second
applicant or
contemplated investing or placing business with the second applicant,
are now requiring of the applicants to account
for the allegations
contained in the five articles. One of the prospective clients
indicated that it was uncomfortable to consider
doing business with
the second applicant. It is consequently, save as I indicate below,
not disputed that clients and prospective
clients, who place large
business with the second applicant, have been influenced by the
articles that the applicants are guilty
of bribery, corruption and
capture. There is consequently a risk that the second applicant may
lose business with some of its existing
clients and that it will be
unable to attract new business as a result of the allegations. This
is so, due to the fact that the
second applicant’s business is
very much based on trust and integrity and allegations of bribery,
corruption and capture
erode such trust and integrity with a
resultant loss of business.
[21]
These allegations are met by the first respondent as follows:
‘
I
deny the publication per se occasioned the harm contended by the
applicants in these paragraphs.’
No
more is said and there is no reason why the detailed uncontested
allegations of the applicants should not be accepted.
Defences
relied upon by the respondent
[22]
Save for general denials, the first respondent’s defences are:
that the publication of the articles was reasonable and
true and in
and the public interest; that forensic investigators stated that
requests for information for them to conduct a forensic
audit were
denied and that there were
‘
significant
concerns regarding deficiencies in the financial reporting, high
management fees and inaccurate manager expense allocation.’
The
respondent alleges that this appears from an annexure to the
applicant’s affidavit being annexure ‘FA4’. The
respondents’ contentions are not supported by annexure ‘FA4’.
The high water mark of the allegations of
the statements in annexure
‘FA4’ is from a business partner of with the second
applicant written by ENS on behalf of
that partner wherein it is
stated:
‘
.
. . Our client has significant concerns regarding its
investment in Sampada.’
[23]
The allegations on which the respondent relies are not contained in
the letter on which he relies. Either the respondent is
falsifying
his evidence or he has failed to appreciate the contents of annexure
‘FA4’ but, it is certain that annexure
‘FA4’
does not purport to support that which the respondent alleges about
the applicants. Annexure ‘FA4’
is a document annexed by
the applicants to their papers in which they explain the significance
of the partnership agreement which
allowed the partner, on whose
behalf the letter was written, access to certain information in the
possession of the second applicant
and not to other information. In
its response to the ENS letter the applicants said:
‘
.
. . Your client’s role in the partnership agreement is very
limited and does not entitle your client to take part in the
management or control of the business and the affairs of the
partnership.’
[24]
The answer by the applicants goes further by offering to meet with
the enquiring party as requested by the enquiring party.
That
brings an end to the totality of the matters contained in the
documents upon which the respondent relies in support of his
contention that the letter ‘bear out the accuracy of the news
reports I have written’.
[25]
Throughout the affidavit of the respondent coveys a defence of truth
and public interest. However, he contradicts his version
that he
published the truth by stating:
‘
I
do not know if the allegations of impropriety levelled against the
applicants are true, however, it is in the public interest
to publish
these allegations since they concern the use of public funds and the
public body SALA.’
The
admission that the allegations of impropriety were levelled against
the applicants, support the applicants’ complaint
regarding the
defamatory nature of the allegations.
[26]
Having regard to the respondent’s reliance on documents which
do not bear out his version, I am inclined to agree with
him that the
respondent does not have knowledge or facts in support of the
impropriety levelled against the applicants. It refutes
a denial that
the publication is defamatory. I am of the view that the allegations
are not only regarding impropriety, they are
per se defamatory. In my
view, a party relying on truth and public interest must prove its
case. Proving the truth of the
statement is a pre-condition for
relying on the fact that the publication may be in the public
interest.
[27]
The allegations published by the respondent are not true. This
is borne out by his own admission that he does not know
whether they
are true or not. It is further borne out by the untruthful
publication regarding the removal of the second respondent’s
board as a direct result of the alleged improper investment with the
second applicant, which the respondent later changed to the
fact that
the board was replaced by the Registrar due to it not having been
properly constituted. The respondent, virtually en
passant, changed
the version without acknowledging the importance of a board not
properly constituted versus it acting improperly
by investing with
the second applicant. This initial allegation was dropped in later
articles for the truth.
[28]
The respondent relies on a report containing several allegations but
which has no author and no source. He further relies
on certain
whistleblowers who he states, contrary to the fact that he has no
knowledge about the impropriety, furnished him with
information and
that he stands ‘by the accuracy and credibility of the
information’. He further asserts that he diligently
ascertained
that the sources that he relied upon were corroborated by other
credible independent sources, but this is where the
respondent
finally fails. The ENS letter which he relied upon as such
corroboration, clearly fails to attain that purpose.
It is
clear from the entire contents of the respondent’s affidavit
that the one thing that he failed to do was to take reasonable
steps
to verify the accuracy of the material which he published.
[29]
Save for relying on the truth and public interest which the
respondent failed to show by any stretch of the imagination, he
further stated that he acted reasonably by publishing that which he
did. But, in
Bogoshi
[2]
,
the Supreme Court of Appeal held as follows:
‘
According
to the judgment in
Langer v
Australian Broadcasting Corporation
the requirement for protection is “reasonableness of conduct”,
which is explained as follows at 574:
“
Whether
the making of a publication was reasonable must depend on all the
circumstances of the case. But, as a general rule, a defendant’s
conduct in publishing material giving rise to a defamatory imputation
will not be reasonable unless the defendant and reasonable
grounds
for believing that the imputation was true, took proper steps, so far
as they were reasonably open, to verify the accuracy
of the material
and did not believe the imputation to be untrue. Furthermore,
the defendant’s contact will not be reasonable
unless the
defendant has sought a response from the person defamed and published
the response made (if any) except in cases where
the seeking or
publication of a response was not practicable or it was unnecessary
to give the plaintiff an opportunity to respond.”’
Defamatory
nature of the allegations
[30]
On a proper consideration of the allegations made by the respondent
and the innuendoes relied upon by the applicants, it is
my view that
all of the articles contain statements which are, per se, defamatory
of and concerning the first and second applicants’
corruption,
bribery and the capture of the office-bearers of contracting parties
or decision-makers in order to win business are
defamatory of the
applicants and cause them harm. In this regard the harm
suffered, in particular by the second applicant,
cannot be, and is
not, seriously disputed. Its business, are likely to suffer should
these allegations remain unchecked and continue
to be published on
the various platforms available to the respondent. Despite the
respondent’s concession that he is
unaware of the truthfulness
of the allegations of impropriety he persistently relied on a defence
of truth and public interest.
That reliance is mere lip-service and
has no factual basis. The attempt to put a factual basis to the
truth of the allegations
with reference, inter alia, to annexure
‘FA4’ fails miserably. What the respondent does say is
that to the extent that
the news reports are based on sources, these
have been properly and meticulously vetted. By that, the respondent
implies that the
persons who furnished the information to him were
properly vetted because he failed to attempt to verify the accuracy
of the material
which he published. The so-called corroboration
and other credible independent sources relied upon by him is, in the
main,
the ENS letter which I have indicated he falsely relies on for
his conclusions but also the fact that the City Press newspaper
forwarded a set of questions to the applicants and that the
applicants had the opportunity to reply, which they did. But what the
respondent fails to appreciate is that this set of questions and
answers were sent and received by the City Press who did not publish
the allegations which the respondent wishes to promote. He took no
reasonable steps, such as those taken by the City Press, to
obtain
the correct information in order to decide the correctness of the
allegations that he was about to publish. The respondent’s
reliance on the reasonableness of his conduct has no basis in the
facts set out by him in his answering affidavit.
[31]
Indeed, in argument before me, the respondent’s counsel relied
on a report quoting officials of the Financial Services
Board
wherein it, too, made certain of the impugned allegations. The
difficulty with this argument is that this was not a
report by the
FSCA but it was an article by the respondent in which he inserted the
logo of the FSCA at the heading of the article.
The result is that
the applicant’s counsel’s reliance on what the FSCA had
apparently said is far-fetched. Relying
on that which the respondent
penned and distributed as being corroboration by a reputable public
organisation to support the respondent’s
defamatory
allegations, is grasping at straws.
[32]
When the applicants threatened to seek relief from the courts, the
respondent’s attorneys on his behalf said as follows:
‘
With
a view of possibly finding middle ground and/or extracting fact from
fiction, our client is prepared to meet your client for
an interview
at a time and place so determined by your client.’
This
belated request must be seen for what it is. It was for the
respondent to ascertain what was fact and what was fiction
prior to
disseminating the defamatory matter. I have indicated that, at
least in one instance, the respondent changed course
after causing
the publication of the first three articles in relation to the
reasons why the board of the second respondent had
been replaced.
[33]
An overview of the papers show that the respondent, if not hounding
the applicants, is intent on publishing uncorroborated
allegations
and conclusions which are defamatory of and regarding the applicants.
The respondent’s answering affidavit lacks
a factual basis for
the lip-service which he offers for truth and public interest
and the reasonableness of his conduct.
[34]
The prejudice caused by the respondent to the applicants is
self-evident and is, save for a bald denial, hardly contradicted.
The
reliance on the truth and public interest in a part of the answering
affidavit is belied by his own words that he does not
know if the
allegations of impropriety levelled against the applicants are true.
This being so, the
contention that there is any public interest in receiving the truth
cannot hold water.
[35]
The only other justification raised by the respondent is that of
reasonableness which I have shown has no merit. Indeed, the
respondent relies on the fact that a spokesperson of the FSCA had
made certain comments apparently in support of the respondent’s
allegations. These comments are contained in the document which
contains the FSCA logo and which I have indicated was the brainchild
of the respondent himself. In any event, had such an official
of the FSCA made any statements to corroborate the respondent’s
allegations it is inexplicable why the respondent could not obtain
affidavits from those officials who are in the employ of a public
body to support his various allegations.
[36]
Although the respondent’s heads of argument lamented that there
was a non-joinder of the media houses that published
the articles
penned by the respondent, nothing turns on this point. If the
applicants so wish they can take steps against those
media houses in
order to obtain relief. There is no reason why the applicant should
be barred from obtaining relief against the
respondent who is the
initiator of the publication process by forwarding his defamatory
articles to the media houses for publication.
[37]
The respondent repeatedly stated that the applicants’ relief
lies in a damages claim against him. This may be of no value
to the
applicants’ losses as its losses may run into millions of rands
whilst there is no evidence that the respondent will
be able to meet
such a claim. The reliance on a damages claim by the respondent is,
in my view, a convenient deflection by the
respondent who clearly
wishes to continue to publish his false and unfounded allegations.
This entitles the applicant to the relief,
even if the effect of the
interdict is of a permanent nature.
[38]
In my view that applicants satisfied all the requirements for an
interim interdict and are entitled to relief.
[39]
For these reasons, I issued the following order:
1.
Pending the final determination of an action for damages to be
instituted by
the applicants within 30 days from date on which this
order is granted, the first respondent is interdicted and restrained
from
making, publishing, causing to be published or disseminated in
any manner, on any media platform, any statements about and
concerning
the applicants, in regard to the matters set out in the
articles marked ‘FA1’ to ‘FA5’ to the
applicants’
founding affidavit.
2.
The costs of this application are to be paid by the first respondent.
__________
Wepener
J
Counsel
for Applicants: L. Uys
Attorneys
for Applicants: Malatji Kanyane Attorneys
Counsel
for the First Respondent: S.L. Shangisa with N.T. Shangase
Attorneys
for the First Respondent: The Freedom of Expression Institute Law
Clinic
[1]
In terms of the
Financial Advisory and Intermediary Services Act 37
of 2002
.
[2]
National Media Limited and Others v Bogoshi
1998 (4) SA
1196
(SCA) at 1211F-G.