About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Eastern Cape High Court, Port Elizabeth
>>
2010
>>
[2010] ZAECPEHC 22
|
|
Rudman v Claassen (442/2010) [2010] ZAECPEHC 22 (25 May 2010)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF
SOUTH AFRICA
(EASTERN CAPE – PORT ELIZABETH)
Case
No.: 442/2010
Date
heard: 4 May 2010
Date
delivered: 25 May 2010
In the matter between:
LINDA
RUDMAN Plaintiff
and
DELIA
CLAASSEN Defendant
J U D G M E N T
DAMBUZA,
J
:
The
plaintiff sues the defendant for damages of R150
,000.00
in respect of certain words written by the defendant of and/or
concerning the plaintiff. The plaintiff contends that an
e-mail in
which these words are expressed is defamatory.
The
plaintiff is a
self employed businesswoman who conducts a business known as T &
L Transport from 101 Lyme Road, St Francis Bay. The defendant
is
also a businesswoman and she is employed by a business known as Cape
Couriers which operates from 6a Printers Way Montagu
Gardens, Cape
Town.
In the
particulars of claim the plaintiff states that on 13 November 2009
the defendant sent her an
insulting,
humiliating and degrading e-mail in which she (the defendant) called
plaintiff a “
cow,
an ignorant imbecile, an ignoramus, a five year old and childish
.”
In the alternative the plaintiff contends that the following
passages in the e-mail were degrading humiliating and insulting
of
her:
“
Never
before have I had to deal with such an ignorant imbecile who has no
knowledge of business etiquette whatsoever . . ., who
the hell do you
think you are, little fish? . . . how old are you, five years
perhaps? . . . you ignorant rude cow . . . I hope
you don’t
treat your staff like this cow, because what goes around comes
around, ignoramus . . . now get a lawyer as well
as a life.”
The
e-mail containing the words complained of
which
is attached to the summons is relatively short. The full content
thereof is as follows:
“
Never
before have I had to deal with such an ignorant imbecile who has no
knowledge of business etiquette whatsoever, no knowledge
of the
procedures that have to be followed and who believes that by
irritating so called creditors with mindless phone calls, that
this
behaviour will initiate some kind of favourable attention which will
result in payment.
Speediously?
There is no such word, didn’t you mean speedily? Time to get a
dictionary!
I
did have every intention of paying the account to ameliorate this
situation and reach a compromise. I assume that you are cognisant
of
the fact that I am away on business and do not have access to your
account, as was explained to you.
Due
to your insults and comments, I will definitely not pay this account
and will see you in court, you do not have a leg to stand
on and you
know it. Who the hell do you think you are, “little fish?”
How old are you, five years perhaps. You
ignorant, rude cow, I
started this business from scratch so I don’t know where you
get this crap fish from and what goes
around comes around, watch your
back then and get a life.
NO
MORE CHILDISH E-MAILS COW, how dare you insult me and ostensibly have
to copy my staff in? I hope you don’t treat your
staff like
this cow, because what goes around comes around, ignoramus.
Now
get a lawyer as well as a life.”
According
to the plaintiff the defamatory words were communicated to her in
Port Elizabeth
.
The
e-mail was sent to the plaintiff in the context of an exchange of
e-mails between the parties about payment of an outstanding
account
by the defendant’s employer to the plaintiff’s
business.
It is addressed to the plaintiff and is “copied” to the
defendant’s colleagues at Cape Couriers, namely,
Riaan, John
and Loraine.
Mr
Mullins
who appeared on behalf of the plaintiff submitted that the words
and/or expressions used by the defendant go beyond mere abuse,
they
constitute a vicious attack on the plaintiff’s professional
integrity and competence
The
summons was served on a certain Mr White, a manager at the
defendant’s place of employment on 24 February 2010.
No
appearance to defend is filed of record and the defendant was not in
attendance when the matter came before me.
The
plaintiff is the only person who testified
at the hearing. Her evidence was that she is the owner of D & L
Transport and as such she handles the finances of the business
including preparation of invoices and collection of payments from
clients of the business. According to her, sometime during
May or
June 2009 D & L Transport rendered some services on behalf of
Cape Couriers. The plaintiff duly issued an invoice
to Cape Couriers
for an amount of R7,500.00 of which only R750.00 was paid. It is as
a result of this failure by Cape Couriers
to pay the invoice that
the parties started exchanging e-mails.
According
to the plaintiff’s further evidence, subsequent to the service
of the summons, she received two further e-mails
from the defendant.
In the first one the plaintiff stated that:
“
A
counter claim will be lodged against you in the High Court of Port
Elizabeth for defamation, any action brought about you will
be
defended in the strongest possible fashion.”
In the second one she said:
“
Read
your comments and insults below and expect a counter claim sooner or
later.”
There is, however, no
counter claim filed of record.
As a
general rule publication of a defamatory statement is
prima
facie
wrongful.
1
It is a question of law whether the words complained of are
reasonably capable of conveying to a reasonable reader a meaning
which defames the plaintiff.
2
The test is: what meaning would an ordinary reader of reasonable
intelligence attribute to the words in the context of the
article as
a whole.
3
It
seems to me
the
entire e-mail is defamatory as such. A person of reasonable
intelligence reading it would gain the impression that the plaintiff
is a stupid person and a person of low business acumen who does not
deserve to occupy the position in business that she currently
occupies. The evidence was that the defamatory e-mail was also
communicated to the plaintiff’s husband who works in the
same
business as the plaintiff. My view is that the e-mail could cause
the husband to gain the impression that the plaintiff
was not coping
with her duties in the business.
I agree
that the words “ignorant imbecile, no knowledge of business
etiquette, mindless phone calls, ignorant rude cow,”
are
insulting on their own and that in the context of the whole document
the words are defamatory of the plaintiff. Further,
in the context
of the document, reference to the plaintiff as a “little fish
and five years (old)” would, in my view
be understood by a
reader of average or reasonable intelligence to mean that the
plaintiff is a small, insignificant player in
the world of business
and that she is immature compared to her counter-parts.
I am satisfied therefore
that the contents of the e-mail are defamatory of and concerning the
plaintiff.
The
plaintiff testified that she was extremely upset by the contents of
the e-mail; that she felt threat
ened
by it and that she cried for days. It was her evidence that she has
since become self conscious in the way she conducts business
and
does not call the business debtors anymore. That the plaintiff was
hurt by the contents of the e-mail became evident as she
testified
in court. She became tearful and her voice was filled with emotion.
From
the evidence it appears that the defendant is the main person in her
business. The image of the business depends, to a large
extent, on
her. The manner in which those who do or are likely to do business
with her perceive her, becomes relevant. I am mindful
that
publication of the e-mail was limited to a few colleagues of the
parties. But then these are the people to whom the plaintiff’s
image is most relevant.
I
t
also seems to me that the insults were not justified. This is so
even in the light of the evidence by the plaintiff she had,
in a
previous e-mail, referred to the defendant, as “obnoxious”
and “unhelpful”. The matter is aggravated
by the
failure to tender an apology even after the summons was served.
Having
considered all these factors my view is that an award of R50,000.00
would be reasonable in this case.
On the
question of costs it was submitted on behalf of the plaintiff that
because of the importance of the matter to the plaintiff
and the
fact that she did not anticipate that the matter would not be
defended, it was wise and reasonable for the plaintiff
to institute
proceedings in this Court rather than the Magistrate’s court.
Whilst I am mindful of the fact that there
is no evidence that
there was actual damage to the plaintiff’s business as a
result of the defendant’s conduct I
do consider it relevant
that in light of that possibility it was reasonable of the plaintiff
to institute proceedings in this
Court.
The following order shall
therefore issue:
The
defendant is ordered to pay to the plaintiff, as damages, an amount
of R50,000.00;
Interest shall be payable
on the said amount at the legal rate with effect from 14 days as
from the date of this judgment;
The defendant shall be
liable for the plaintiff’s costs.
_________________________
N. DAMBUZA
JUDGE OF THE HIGH COURT
Appearances
:
For the
applicant:
Adv.
N.J. Mullins instructed by Clark & Erasmus Inc.
For the
respondent: No Appearance
1
Amler’s
precendent of pleadings, 6
th
edition at 134
2
Sindani
v Van der Merwe
[2002] 1 All SA 311
,
2002 (2) SA 32
(SCA)
3
Sindani
(supra) at 37