REPUBLIC OF SOUTH AFRICA
IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA
GAUTENG DIVISION, PRETORIA
C
ASE
NO: 63291
In the matter between:
ROBERT WILLIAMS THOMPSON Plaintiff
and
JOHAN VAN NIEKERK
Defendant
__________________________________________________________________
JUDGMENT
__________________________________________________________________
SK HASSIM J
[1] This is an application for default judgment. The plaintiff instituted an action
for defamation and claims damages in an amount of R2 000 000.00 for reputational
damage. The defendant did not defend the action. The plaintiff applies for default
judgment in an amount of R600 000.00.
(1) REPORTABLE: NO
(2) OF INTEREST TO OTHER JUDGES: NO
(3) REVISED: YES.
12 FEBRUARY 2
026
Page | 2
[2] The plaintiff did not testify viva voce in support of his claim for damages.
In lieu thereof his counsel tendered an affidavit to prove his damages.
[3] While there are instances where a court may permit proof of damages by
affidavit, this is not immutable. To the contrary, Rule 31(2)(a) caters for
applications for default judgments in claims for unliquidated damages. It provides:
“Whenever in an action the claim or, … is not for a debt or liquidated demand
and a defendant is in default of delivery of notice of intention to defend or of
a plea, the plaintiff may set the action down as provided in subrule (4) for
default judgment and the court may, after hearing evidence, grant judgment
against the defendant or make such order as it deems fit. ”
[4]
An award of damages for defamation is compensation for an injury to dignity
and reputation claimed under the actio injuriarum. It is to compensate a person
defamed for wounded feelings and loss of reputation. 1 In assessing an appropriate
award for compensation various factors should be considered such as the character
and status of the plaintiff, the extent of the defamatory publication, its envisaged and
actual impact, the subsequent conduct of the person who made the defamatory
statement, whether there has been an adverse effect on the plaintiff’s business or
practice due to the loss of reputation. Evidence about the hurt experienced by the
plaintiff, the impact on the person’s professional and social activities all feature in
determining an appropriate award.
2 The assessment is best made after hearing the
plaintiff viva voce. Though the enquiry will not be as detailed or controversial as it
would be if the action were defended. 3
[5] A proper assessment of the appropriate compensation cannot be assessed at
this stage. The plaintiff must follow the procedure set out in rule 31(2)(a). I
therefore intend postponing the application for def ault judgment to afford the
therefore intend postponing the application for def ault judgment to afford the
plaintiff the opportunity to follow the procedure in rule 31(2)(a).
1 Economic Freedom Fighter and Others v Manuel (Media Monitoring Africa Trust as amicus
curiae)[2021] 1 All SA 623 (SCA) para 91.
2 Economic Freedom Fighter and Others v Manuel para 96 - 98.
3 Economic Freedom Fighter and Others v Manuel para 100.
Page | 3
[6] In the result I make the following order:
(a) The application for default judgment is postponed sine die.
_____________________ ____
S K HASSIM
Judge of the High Court of South Africa
Gauteng Division, Pretoria
This judgment was prepared and authored by the Judge whose name is reflected and
is handed down electronically by circulation to the parties’ legal representatives by
e-mail and by uploading it to the electronic file on CaseLines. 13 February 2026 is
deemed to be date on which the judgment is handed down.
Counsel for Plaintiff: Adv Jako Vorser
Attorney for Plaintiff: Finck Attorneys