About SAFLII
Databases
Search
Terms of Use
RSS Feeds
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
SAFLII
>>
Databases
>>
South Africa: Free State High Court, Bloemfontein
>>
2015
>>
[2015] ZAFSHC 171
|
|
Kgothule v Majonga and Another (4946/2010) [2015] ZAFSHC 171; 2015 (6) SA 389 (FB) (10 September 2015)
FREE STATE HIGH COURT,
BLOEMFONTEIN
REPUBLIC OF SOUTH
AFRICA
Case No. : 4946/2010
DATE: 10 SEPTEMBER 2015
In the matter between:-
DAN ANDREW MOKHUOE
KGOTHULE
.............................................................................
Plaintiff
And
DARLINGTON
MAJONGA
.............................................................................................
1st
Defendant
LETLAKA COMMUNICATIONS
AND
MARKETING
….....................................................................................................
2nd
Defendant
HEARD ON: 28 & 29 JULY 2015
JUDGMENT BY: KRUGER, J
DELIVERED ON: 10 SEPTEMBER 2015
I Introduction
[1] The plaintiff, who was Member of
the Executive Council of the Free State Province responsible for the
Department of Sport, Arts,
Culture and Recreation from September 2007
until May 2014, claims to have been defamed in an article written by
Sphiwe Mboyane
in The Weekly, a newspaper circulating in the Free
State and published during the week of 5-12 August 2010. At the time
Mboyane
was editor of The Weekly. He died in October 2014. Summons
was issued against Sphiwe Mboyane as first defendant in his capacity
as editor of The Weekly and Letlaka Communications and Marketing in
its capacity as owner, printer, distributor or publisher of
The
Weekly. After the death of Mr Mboyane in October 2014 the parties
agreed that he be substituted with Darlington Majonga, the
current
editor of The Weekly. The parties also agreed that the second
defendant is now 2 Dimensions Writing CC trading as Lethaka
Communications and Marketing.
[2] The article appears at pages 1 and
2 of the 5-12 August 2010 edition of The Weekly under the heading
“Magashule ‘aces’
first year in office”, “By:
Sphiwe Mboyane”. The article comments favourably on the work
of the Premier. Three
paragraphs comment negatively on the
Department of Health, saying that the political leadership in that
department has not risen
to the occasion. The last column of the
article comments on the Department of Sport, Arts and Culture:
“There are also genuine public
concerns about the department of sport, arts and culture.
Constant complains about arts
institutions such as Pacofs not adequately serving artists in the
province cannot be ignored.
The constant complaints by institutions
such as Mmabana Cultural Centre and other arts institutions that they
are not receiving
adequate support from the department needs to be
addressed if we are to build a vibrant arts sector in the province.
There are also problems that continue
to surround the hosting of our well-known Macufe festival. If it is
not budget overruns,
then it service providers who are not paid on
time leading to public complaints about the department, which impacts
negatively
on the provincial. Poor marketing and advertising of the
event has not helped matters as it robs the province of the
opportunity
to raise the much need tourism revenue yet nothing is
being done to remedy the situation.
Many senior managers in the department
have also attributed the shortcoming of the department to the
deteriorating and frosty relationship
between themselves and the MEC.
In the past several months The Weekly
has been inundated with several departmental and public complaints of
the MEC’s lack
of commitment to his public engagements by
arriving late and the continuing failure to honour his appearance at
the Free State
Legislature.
This has led to the portfolio committee
of Sport, Arts and Culture publicly rebuking the MEC for undermining
it.
Several public complaints on how he
undermines and addresses members of the community have come to the
fore.”
[3] After publication of the article
plaintiff’s attorney on 1 September 2010 wrote a letter to the
editor of The Weekly:
“DA M KHOTHULE – THE WEEKLY
5-12 AUGUST 2010
We have been instructed by Mr Kgotule
to address this letter to you in response to the reference to our
client in the article, titled
“Magashule “Aces”
First Year in Office” that appeared in your Newspaper of 5 –
12 August 2010.
Please take notice that our clients
view is that the reference to him as that:
1. “he lacks commitment”,
2. that he is arriving late at meetings
and,
3. “his continuous failure to
honour his appearance at the Free State Legislature”,
was clearly an endeavour to belittle
him in the eyes of the public. It is our instructions that evidence
will proof the exact opposite.
Our instructions are to demand that a
similar article should be placed in your Newspaper of equal
prominence stating the correct
facts and apologizing for the
misstatements and further to demand an undertaking that your
Newspaper will refrain from publishing
similar false allegations
regarding our client in future, within the next 10 days.
Take further notice that our client
will, depending upon your replying actions, deliberate whether or not
to bring an action for
defamation.
We await your urgent response.”
[4] The editor responded as follows in
a letter dated 10 September 2010:
“10 September 2010
Dear Sir
DA M KGOTHULE – THE WEEKLY 5-12
AUGUST 2010
Your letter dated 01/09/2010 bears
reference.
The contents of the article entitled
“Magashule – Ace’s First Year in Office” with
regard to Mr. Kgothule
in his capacity as the MEC of Sports, Arts and
Culture in the Free State are accurate based on evidence, interviews,
and information
available to the newspaper. The comments made in the
article relates to Mr. Kgothule in his capacity as an elected public
representative.
As you know all public representatives are
accountable to the public with regard to the execution of their
duties. Mr Kgothule
is therefore not an exception. Our contention
in the above-mentioned article, based on information at our disposal,
confirms that
he arrived late at several public meetings and that his
department had been castigated by the Free State Legislature for
failing
to honour certain appearances. We are convinced, therefore,
that the suggestion that your client’s actions demonstrate lack
of commitment to his public duty constitutes fair comment.
Contrary to your contention that our
article was an endeavour to “belittle” your client, we
saw it as part of our responsibility
as a newspaper to hold public
representatives, such as your client, accountable on behalf of the
public they are elected to serve.
May we also take the liberty to
inform you that your client was not the only MEC whose commitment to
his task was questioned.
This demonstrates that neither malice
nor personal vendetta was behind our reporting about your client. We
however wish to state
that this statement does not preclude our
newspaper from placing in the public domain any other information
about your client as
an individual MEC in relation to his
responsibilities.
We would be failing in our duty as a
newspaper if we give your client an undertaking to refrain from
publishing any information
about him in the future. If the
information we publish about him in the future turns out to be false,
your client has many avenues
to seek relief. They include
approaching the Press Ombudsman and/or instituting a civil claim
against the newspaper in a court
of law. Giving an undertaking not
to publish allegations against your client amounts to
self-censorship. We would be betraying
the founding principle of our
existence, the freedom of the press and free speech if we make such
an undertaking.
Lastly, we are baffled by your client’s
threat to bring a defamation claim against our newspaper. There is
nothing in the
article, in our view, that is defamatory to your
client in his capacity as the MEC. We are convinced that any third
party, including
the courts, would view our comments about your
clients as fair and the facts contained in the article as accurate.
We, therefore, in response to your
instruction wish to place on record the following:
1. We will not place a similar article
in our newspaper of equal prominence as we believe that our facts are
correct;
2. We will not apologise for the
so-called “misstatements” made in the article, as we deem
the statements made in the
article to be fair and accurate; and
3. We will not give your client an
undertaking not to publish any allegations about him in the future.
We also wish to place it on record that
your client is at liberty to bring a defamation claim against our
newspaper. Our lawyers
will be readily available to defend such a
claim.
Hope you find above in order
Kind regards,
S. W Mboyane
The Editor”
[5] The plaintiff in a pre-trial
conference held on 22 July 2015 accepted that he had the duty to
begin and that he bears the onus
of proof. The plaintiff called four
witnesses:
(i) The plaintiff
(ii) Ms Tsoneli, now a Member of
Parliament, Member of the Executive Committee and Chair of the
Portfolio Committee for Arts, Culture,
Education during the period
2008 to May 2009.
(iii) Daniel Maleko, now a
self-employed theatre practitioner. During August 2010 he was a
Director in the Department of Sport,
Arts and Culture and Recreation
responsible for the performing and community arts.
(iv) Jacobus Stephanus Kellerman, who
has been the Chief Financial Officer of the Department of Sport, Arts
and Culture in the Free
State since June 2009.
II The Law
[6] Defamation is the wrongful
intentional publication of a defamatory statement concerning the
plaintiff (Khumalo and Others v
Holomisa
[2002] ZACC 12
;
2002 (5) SA 401
(CC) par
[18]). Once the plaintiff establishes these aspects it is presumed
that the statement was unlawful and intentional, and
the defendant
must rebut unlawfulness and intention. The defendant can raise the
defence that the publication constituted fair
comment, as was done
here. Another defence rebutting unlawfulness has been adopted by our
courts when dealing with the press,
namely that upon a consideration
of all the circumstances of the case, it is found to have been
reasonable to publish the particular
facts in the particular manner
at the time in question (National Media Ltd and Others v Bogoshi
1998
(4) SA 1196
(SCA) at 1212G-1213A, adopted by the Constitutional Court
in Khumalo and Others v Holomisa
[2002] ZACC 12
;
2002 (5) SA 401
(CC) pars
[18]-[20]).
[7] The primary meaning of a statement
is the ordinary meaning given to the statement in its context by a
reasonable person. The
second meaning is an innuendo (Le Roux and
Others v Dey (Freedom of Expression Institute and Restorative Justice
Centre as Amici
Curiae)
2011 (3) SA 274
(CC)). In this case the
plaintiff relies on the primary meaning. In the two-stage enquiry
the first step is to establish the
ordinary meaning of the statement.
The second enquiry is whether that meaning is defamatory (SA
Associated Newspapers Ltd en ‘n
Ander v Samuels
1980 (1) SA 24
(A) at 30F-G). The ordinary meaning is established by determining
what meaning the reasonable reader of ordinary intelligence
would
attribute to the words (Le Roux and Others v Dey (supra) par [89]).
The evidence has to be considered in
relation to the article and the witnesses. I proceed to deal with
the specific content of
the article and what the witnesses said in
relation to each of the components.
III Content of Article
A) “Constant complaints about
arts institutions such as PACOFS not adequately serving artists in
the province cannot be ignored”
[8] The plaintiff’s case,
supported by all his witnesses, is that PACOFS falls under the
National Department of Arts and Culture,
not under the Free State
Province. Ms Tsoneli did say that the Free State Department of
Sport, Arts and Culture transferred R2
million to PACOFS because
PACOFS had to be assisted. She said the Department requested the
Portfolio Committee to transfer the
money to PACOFS. She said that
when they went to PACOFS to exercise their oversight role the PACOFS
leadership told them that
they did not have an oversight role.
Although the money had been transferred, Ms Tsoneli said they then
decided that the Department
should no longer assist PACOFS until
PACOFS agreed. It thus appeared that during the period in question
in this case, the plaintiff’s
Department did transfer R2
million to PACOFS. In that manner, at the very least, the plaintiff
assumed involvement in PACOFS.
The plaintiff cannot blame the
editor, Mr Mboyane, to assume that he had some control over PACOFS.
Such belief of Mr Mboyane
was reasonable and not negligent. In
cross-examination the plaintiff said after members of the trade union
had complained to the
minister, he and his Department realised there
were shortcomings with PACOFS, that is why they created the Free
State Arts and
Culture Association; they had learned from the PACOFS
mistakes.
B) “Constant complaints by
Mmabana Culture Centre and other arts institutions”
[9] Plaintiff testified that before he
become MEC the Mmabana Cultural Centre was down-scaled, this happened
before 2007. Plaintiff
said he lobbied people form outside to give
money to the centre. The centre now has a fashion design unit and
makes clothes.
The Mmabana Centre was under the control of Tshilo
Mtsabi, who reported directly to the Director of Arts and Culture,
being Daniel
Maleko, who also testified in this trial. Asked about
the Mmabane Centre, Ms Tsoneli said plaintiff was innovative and
dedicated
in his work. Capital works took place and representation
in Grahamstown was arranged.
[10] Daniel Maleko testified that the
head of the Mmabana Cultural Centre reported to him. There were
monthly and quarterly reporting
sessions. According to him the only
challenge was that there were vacancies that could not be filled due
to the moratorium on
the filling of vacancies in the province. He
conceded that the CEO of the Mmabana Cultural Centre was suspended,
around late 2009.
He denied that there was turmoil at the Centre and
said there was disruption, which he conceded could give rise to
complaints.
C) The Macufe festival:
(i) Budget overruns
(ii) Service providers not paid on time
[11] Plaintiff testified that the
annual Macufe festival draws 150 000 people in the Free State.
International artists are used
as draw-cards. 75% of the artists who
perform are from the Free State. Money for Macufe comes from the
Executive Council, not
the Department. The Macufe festival was
managed by the PSS Consortium, appointed as the service provider by
the Provincial Executive
Council. The plaintiff’s Department
had no control over the service provider. During the years 2007-2008
the Macufe festival
was managed by Free State Tourism, and when
plaintiff was MEC he had to see to it that Macufe got better. In
cross-examination
it was put to the plaintiff that he had intimate
involvement with Mafuce. He conceded that he called in the
consortium from time
to time to see whether they did what they were
supposed to do. As to the budget overruns plaintiff explained that
an adjustment
to the budget was made at a later stage. He appeared
to be saying that the full cost was known at the outset, but that the
final
part of the costs would come out of a later budget.
[12] Mr Daniel Moleko testified that he
was not aware of budget overruns for Macufe in 2009 and 2010, but he
acknowledged that the
Department did receive complaints from service
providers who said they were not paid on time. In cross-examination
he agreed that
there was a view that there was a budget overrun, yet
he did not want to concede that it is not unreasonable for an
outsider to
say that there was a budget overrun. When Mr Kellerman
was asked whether some service providers were not paid, he said he
could
not give a direct answer but conceded that he did hear some
complaints which were not directed at him. In cross-examination
Kellerman
said Macufe was not adequately budgeted. There were
decisions taken at a higher level that more funds had to be given for
Macufe.
Asked whether he accepted that people prefer to complain to
the media rather than to go through the channels of the Department,
Kellerman responded that that happens every day. Asked whether there
were budget overruns Ms Tsoneli said you cannot hold the
Department
responsible without looking at what happened.
[13] On the evidence it is clear that
there were budget overruns and some service providers did complain
for not being paid on time.
D) Poor marketing and Advertising of
Macufe
[14] Plaintiff testified that the PSS
Consortium was responsible for marketing and advertising the Macufe
festival. Accroding to
him advertising on radio and in newspapers
was always done properly. Daniel Maleko and plaintiff solicited a
sponsorship from
Absa of R2 million to do a benefit analysis of
Macufe. The report done by the University of the Free State showed
that the Macufe
festival yielded an economic benefit to the Free
State Province. Plaintiff testified that he saw billboards and
advertisements
and in his view Macufe was “Highly”
marketed.
[15] It appears that marketing and
advertising was the responsibility of the PSS Consortium, not the
Department. It is clear however
that the Department retained an
oversight role and cannot pass all its responsibility to the
consortium.
E) Frosty relationship between Senior
Managers and the MEC:
[16] Plaintiff testified that the
Department was at its highest peak during the time he was MEC. There
were never disagreements
with senior managers. Ms Tsoneli said if
senior management had a problem with the plaintiff they should have
alerted the Portfolio
Committee. Asked about the alleged frosty
relationship, Daniel Maleko said that he was satisfied with his
relationship with the
plaintiff and he was not aware of other senior
managers who were dissatisfied with the plaintiff. Asked about the
management style
of the plaintiff, Maleko responded that the
plaintiff used to make surprise visits. Asked whether there could
have been a frosty
relationship between plaintiff and a senior
manager, Maleko responded that there could be, but he did not recall
any such case.
Kellerman said his relationship with the plaintiff
was not frosty and he said the relationship of some other senior
managers was
not significantly frosty, never to the extent that there
was a break-down of communication. There were differences of opinion
which were dealt with. Kellerman described the management style of
the plaintiff as being a driver, if he wanted something done,
he made
sure it was done. He became impatient like many managers.
[17] From the evidence it appears that
the management style of the plaintiff did not endear himself at all.
He was a driver who
wanted things done. There were probably managers
who did not have a good relationship with him.
[18] The comment in the newspaper that
the plaintiff had a frosty relationship with many senior managers was
not negligently made
and was reasonable.
F) Complaints about:
(i) Arriving late at public
engagements, and
(ii) Continuous failure to appear in
the legislature.
[19] Plaintiff testified that he was
never late at any event. He described the report that he was late as
“just lies”.
As to the reference to the meeting of 20
April 2010 where the chairperson told the meeting that the
representatives of the Department
of Sport, Arts and Culture and
Recreation were not present, having informally wanted to apologise,
which apology she did not accept,
plaintiff testified that he was not
expected to attend that meeting. He said not a single MEC was at
that meeting. No political
office-bearer was expected to attend that
meeting. Plaintiff said he was never rebuked by the chairperson of
any committee.
[20] In cross-examination plaintiff
said for the first time that the editor appeared before the Portfolio
Committee and admitted
lies. Asked why he had not said so earlier,
plaintiff responded that he was never asked. Plaintiff said he told
his lawyers about
the apology of the editor to the Portfolio
Committee only the week of the trial, being five years later (2015),
because, he said,
there was no reason to tell them earlier. Asked
why no reference to the meeting of the editor with the Portfolio was
made after
the plea was filed in May 2011, plaintiff responded that
it could be that at that time the editor had not met the Portfolio
Committee.
[21] The evidence of Ms Tsoneli, who
was the chairperson of the Portfolio Committee was that she does not
read newspapers because
newspapers are always not accurate in the
school she comes from. In the school she comes from newspapers are
not always biased
against the government. One of the officials
showed her the article in The Weekly and she called a meeting with
the editor. He
told her that a lady had written the article. This
is strange, because at the top of the article is stated: “By:
Sphiwe
Mboyane” immediately below the heading, in bold letters
in tram lines. According to Ms Tsoneli the editor agreed that he
would retract the statements about the meeting. This evidence
differs from what the plaintiff said in cross-examination, namely
that the editor appeared before the Portfolio Committee and admitted
writing lies. Plaintiff did not say that the editor said
a lady had
written the article. The evidence of the plaintiff and Ms Tsoneli
casts doubt on their credibility. Asked when she
met the late editor
Ms Tsoneli agreed that it was after 12 August 2010. She was not
aware of the editor’s response dated
10 September 2010 to the
letter of demand. She also did not recall if the meeting with the
editor was shortly after 12 August
2010. The meeting of 20 April
2010 concerned the Soccer World Cup and the municipality. At that
meeting the chairperson said
that it is a known fact that there is no
relationship between the Municipal Manager and the Department of
Sport, Arts, Culture
and Recreation.
[22] There is not much evidence as to
the attendance by the plaintiff of events, or arriving late. The
editor who wrote the article
is now deceased. The main thrust of the
evidence concerned the alleged rebuking of the plaintiff by the
chairperson. The evidence
by the plaintiff and Ms Tsoneli clouds
this issue and it is difficult to make a finding in favour of the
plaintiff about these
allegations. The allegations go to the
commitment of the plaintiff. The report of the Auditor General shows
that there was poor
financial oversight, although it did apparently
improve towards the end of the 2010 year.
G) Complaints on how the plaintiff
undermines and address members of the community
[23] This paragraph refers to general
complaints. The witnesses cannot deny that complaints were received.
Ms Tsoneli said people
should have followed the proper channels and
complain to the Portfolio Committee. Mr Kellerman agreed that many
people choose
to approach the press instead. These are allegations,
not facts. There can be no cause for complaint by the plaintiff
about this
statement.
IV The witnesses generally
[24] The Plaintiff and Ms Tsoneli were
loquacious and at pains to give reasons why the plaintiff did good
work as an MEC. They seemed
to overlook the fact that this case is
not about the fitness of the plaintiff to hold office, but whether
the article written by
Sphiwe Mboyane was defamatory.
[25] The plaintiff only near the end of
cross-examination said that the editor had apologised about the
article. Ms Tsoneli gave
evidence that she called Mboyane in to come
to see her, and he apologised. The fact that this evidence was given
at such a late
stage, and is in conflict with the stance adopted by
Mboyane in his letter responding to the letter of demand, casts doubt
on the
credibility of the plaintiff and Ms Tsoneli.
[26] Ms Tsoneli maintained that she is
not a public servant, but a public office bearer. She said she is
paid by the state not
the taxpayer. Ms Tsoneli accepted that in the
legislature as political structure, the MEC has to take
responsibility. The MEC
is the political over seer whose duty it is
to ensure that programmes are put in place.
[27] Daniel Maleko, in contrast to Ms
Tsoneli, said he reads newspapers regularly. He agreed that people
make outrageous comments
in newspapers. He accepted that people are
entitled to speak their mind. Mr Kellerman accepted that some people
prefer to complain
to the media rather than using the official
channels.
V Conclusion:
[28] Mr Knoetze, for plaintiff,
contends that the article conveys to the reasonable, ordinary reader
the message that the plaintiff
neglected his duties as a public
official. He says the article would probably lower the plaintiff in
the esteem of the right-thinking
members of society. It is an
objective test to determine whether the reputation of the plaintiff
has been infringed on a balance
of probabilities (Le Roux and Others
v Dey (supra) pars [168]-[169]). In the case of political
office-bearers more latitude is
allowed to the press, as long as
dishonourable conduct is not imputed to them (Minister of Justice v
SA Associated Newspapers Ltd
and Another
1979 (3) SA 466
(C) at
475B-F). There is no licence to publish untrue statements about
politicians. Politicians also have the right to protect
their
dignity and reputations (Mthembi-Mahanyele v Mail and Guardian Ltd
and Another
2004 (6) SA 329
(SCA) pars [47]-[50]).
[29] Mr Arendse, for the defendants
points out that Le Roux and Others v Dey did not involve the media,
but the publication of alleged
defamatory material at a school. Mr
Arendse stresses the importance of the defence open to media
defendants that the publication
(even if it was false) was
nevertheless reasonable in all the circumstances (Khumalo and Others
v Holomisa (supra) par [19]).
[30] As to the defence of fair comment,
Mr Arendse refers to The Citizen 1978 (Pty) Ltd and Others v McBride
(Johnstone and Others,
Amici Curiae)
2011 (4) SA 191
(CC) pars
[79]-[86] where Cameron J pointed out that an important rationale for
the defence of fair comment is to ensure that divergent
views are
aired in public and subject to scrutiny and debate. Cameron J
prefers to refer to “protected” comments,
rather than
“fair”. Discussion of matters of public interest should
be protected in the constitutional dispensation.
[31] Mr Arendse contends that
objectively viewed, the reasonable reader of ordinary intelligence
would not attribute a defamatory
meaning to the article. The article
is a “report card” and raises complaints and concerns.
The test is whether the
article is defamatory of the plaintiff, and
whether the article is likely to injure the good esteem in which he
is held by the
reasonable or average person reading it (Le Roux and
Others v Dey (supra) par [91]). Mr Arendse says the article will not
expose
the plaintiff to hatred, contempt or ridicule (with reference
to Le Roux and Others v Dey (supra) par [91]). The test is whether
it is more probable than not that the statement will harm the
plaintiff. Mr Arendse submits that the plaintiff failed to discharge
the onus that the article was defamatory. Therefore the presumption
of wrongfulness does not arise. He further says the article
contained fair and protected comment as contemplated in McBride
(supra). He further submits that having regard to the evidence
it
appears on a balance of probability that the publication was
reasonable on the basis set out in Bogoshi.
[32] The material complained forms part
of a report on the first year in office of the premier. The
performance of the plaintiff’s
department as dealt with in the
report was one of the areas where there is room for improvement.
From the evidence it appeared
that there were a number of problems
with regard to arts and culture in the province. It is clear that
all artists were not paid
timeously for their Macufe performances.
The PSS Consortium was responsible for payment, but the plaintiff’s
Department
retained its oversight role. As to PACOFS, there were
problems, to such an extent that the province gave it R2 million.
The public
was entitled to believe that the plaintiff in his capacity
as head of the Department in the legislature failed them. The
article
does not constitute an unreasonable and unfounded attack on
the plaintiff. The editor, as appears from his letter in response to
the Demand, acted as a responsible journalist, pointing out
complaints and allegations. It is not in dispute that there were
complaints. From the cross-examination and reference to the Report
of the Auditor General it appears that there were problems.
[33] In my view the reasonable
right-thinking reader would not read the article to convey the
message that the plaintiff was not
fit to hold office. The proof
thereof is that the premier did not see fit to remove the plaintiff
as MEC after the article was
published. The plaintiff remained in
office as MEC until 2014. The defendants established on a balance of
probabilities that
the editor acted reasonably and not negligently in
writing the article, and this constitutes a defence. Politicians
must realize
that high trees catch more wind. The public is entitled
to have views aired that politicians may not agree with. Journalists
should not have to look over their shoulder every time they write
articles to ensure that they do not offend politicians. Robust
debate is essential to a democracy. The publication of the article
was reasonable and the plaintiff has no reason to complain.
ORDER
Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed
with costs.
A. KRUGER, J
On behalf of Plaintiff: Adv B
Knoetze SC
Instructed by: Stander &
Partners
BLOEMFONTEIN
On behalf of Defendants: Adv N
Arendse SC
Instructed by: Honey Attorneys
BLOEMFONTEIN