THE SUPREME COURT OF APPEAL OF SOUTH AFRICA
Reportable
Case No 0183/03
In the matter between
DELTA MOTOR CORPORATION (PTY) LTD Appellant
and
JACO VAN DER MERWE Respondent
Before Mpati DP, Brand JA, Conradie JA, Cloete JA, &
Jones AJA
Heard 3 May 2004
Delivered 31 May 2004
Summary: Refusal of interdict restraining defamation ─
wrongfulness ─ whether alleged defam atory statement a fair
comment on a matter of public interest ─ order in paragraph 16,
page 16.
JUDGMENT
Jones AJA
2
JONES AJA:
[1] The appellant, Delta Corporation (Pty) Ltd (‘Delta’) is a
manufacturer of motor vehicles . Its range includes Isuzu KB 280
four-wheel drive double cab light de livery vehicles, or ‘bakkies,’ as
they are commonly called. The respondent is the owner of an
Isuzu KB 280 4 x 4 double cab bakkie which he purchased new
from a Delta dealer. He maintains that his vehicle developed a
bent chassis as the result of a manufacturer’s defect. His
negotiations to have the vehicle replaced or repaired at Delta’s
expense have proved futile. This is because Delta considers that
the condition of the vehicle is the result of overloading, bad driving,
and owner abuse. The res pondent is not prepared to accept this.
When his efforts to change Delt a’s mind were unsuccessful he
resorted to sending electronic ma il via the internet, attaching
photographs of the vehicle and ex plaining to the recipients his
version of what had happened to his bakkie and his dissatisfaction
with the way Delta had handled hi s complaints. He also took to
displaying his vehicle, which ha s an obviously bent chassis, in
public places with the words ‘Swakste 4 x 4 x Ver; Grondpad Knak
Onderstel’ emblazoned on it in large print. Delta re gards this as a
smear campaign against it and its product. It complains that the e-
3
mails and the display of the vehicl e with the slogan on it amount to
the publication of defamatory st atements about it. The respondent
says that he is merely exercising his right of freedom of
expression.
[2] Things came to a head on 13 June 2002 when Delta
discovered that the respondent intended displaying his bakkie,
complete with the slogans on t he back and side windows of the
canopy, outside an exhibition of four wheel drive vehicles to be
held at Kyalami, Gauteng that weekend. The exhibition was
expected to attract thousands of four-by-four enthusiasts. The
result was motion proceedings bro ught by Delta in the Pretoria
High Court as a matter of urgency on the late afternoon of Friday,
14 June 2002. The court (Van d er Westerhuizen J) granted a rule
nisi operating as a temporary inte rdict, the effect of which, in
summary, was to restrain the res pondent from displaying a notice
with the words ‘Swakste 4 x 4 x Ver; Grondpad Knak Onderstel’ on
his Isuzu 4 x 4 bakkie in any plac e to which the public has access,
or from publishing directly or i ndirectly, whether by electronic mail
or otherwise, false or defamatory statements about its products, or
from displaying any notice, ban ner or statement which contains
false or defamatory statements ab out its products. The order was
4
widely framed. One of its prov isions precluded the respondent
from making any statement all eging that Delta’s products were
defective or sub-standard, wh ich would prevent him from
expressing an honest opin ion even to his wife, family and close
friends.
[3] On the extended return dat e the court (R Claassen AJ)
dismissed with costs an application for a final interdict in the same
terms. Delta now appeals against t hat dismissal, with leave from
this court.
[4] A sketch of the background facts is necessary. The
respondent is a four-by-four enthusiast. This was his fourth Isuzu 4
x 4 bakkie. It was manufactured on 23 January 2000, purchased
from a Delta dealer on 4 April 2000, and put to use without incident
for the next 12 months. When I say dealer, I should perhaps make
it clear that Delta dealers sell Delta products, but they are not
Delta agents and they do not bring the purchasers into a
contractual relationship with the manufacturer. A purchaser’s
remedies for breach of contract a re against the dealer and not the
manufacturer. The res pondent has not invoked his contractual
remedies.
5
[5] On the version of the resp ondent, the respondent took his
wife and three small children on a ca mping holiday to Namibia via
Botswana and the Caprivi in Apr il 2001. He used the bakkie and
towed a trailer. On 5 January 2 001, on his arrival at Kunene River
Lodge about 50 kilometres from R uacana, Namibia, he discovered
that the chassis of his Isuzu had be nt. This was clearly visible, the
bakkie portion of the vehicle ha ving pulled away from the cab
leaving a gaping apert ure. According to t he respondent this must
have occurred while the bakkie wa s being driven along the final
30-kilometre stretch of the gra vel road to Kunene River Lodge
because there was nothing wro ng with the bakkie before he
commenced that part of the trip. This version was disputed by
Delta.
[6] It is common cause that on the respondent’s return to
Pretoria he told Delta’s representatives what had happened. They
inspected the vehicle on two occasions, once in Pretoria and once
at the factory in Port Elizabet h. Delta ascertained from these
examinations that the chassi s of the bakkie had indeed bent,
although it concluded that th e cause was not a manufacturer’s
defect but the result of an abnormal impact to the chassis probably
caused by driver abuse at a time when it was overloaded. In the
6
meantime, the respondent had arra nged for an examination of his
vehicle by the South Africa n Bureau of Standards. The SABS
referred the vehicle to an indepe ndent concern called Eurotype
Test Centre (Pty) Ltd, who p roduced a report expressing the
opinion that the bent cha ssis was probably caused by
inconsistency in the thickness of its steel structure. This opinion
was disputed by Delta’s technical staff. They explained that the
design of the chassis deliberat ely specified a difference in
thickness at different points, an d that this chassis was within
normal specifications. This le d to considerable correspondence
between the respondent and his a ttorneys and Delta and its
attorneys. The result was a stalemate. No compromise could be
reached.
[7] Counsel made it clear dur ing the course of argument that
Delta did not rely for its relief on the dissemination of a wilful
falsehood of the kind described in Geary & Son (Pty) Ltd v Gove 1.
Delta’s case for a final interdict is based squarely on defamation. It
must prove a clear right, an act ual or imminently threatened
violation of that right, and that no other remedy will give adequate
protection. There was no dispute about Delta’s right to its
1 1964 (1) SA 434 (A).
7
commercial reputation, and it was not suggested in argument that
any remedy other than an interdict would give adequate protection.
The dispute is about the alleged in vasion of its rights. For this
Delta must establish a wrongful and intentional publication of a
defamatory statement about it or its products. Un like in the case of
an injurious falsehood it does no t have to prove that the
defamatory statement is false. Once publication of a defamatory
statement about a person is prov ed, the elements of wrongfulness
and animus injuriandi are presumed, and th e onus of proving that
the publication was not wrongful is on the publisher.
[8] The alleged defamation is cont ained in the e-mail and in the
words displayed on the vehicle. Photographs of the vehicle were
sent with the e-mail. Copies are no t attached to the affidavits, but I
shall assume that they show the same words: ‘Swakste 4 x 4 x
Ver; Grondpad Knak Onderstel’. The first question is whether or
not this was defamatory. I shall de al with the body of the e-mail
first, and then with the words shown on the bakkie and in the
photographs of the bakkie.
[9] The e-mail was sent via the inte rnet to some 27 recipients. It
reads:
‘
Subject: FW:SWAKSTE 4 X 4 X VER.
8
Geagte vriend
Hiermee 'n verhaal wat ek met u graag wil deel. Hierdie bakkie se onderstel
het op 5 April 2001 geknak op 29 000 km en 1 jaar en 1 dag oud. Met my
terugkoms het Delta gesê ek het die bakkie misbruik aangesien daar ' n duik
in die uitlaat pyp is en ook krapme rke aan die agterse ewenaar van die
bakkie. Hulle sê ook dat die krapmerke dui daarop dat die bakkie aan ' n
abnormale impak onderhewig was - Wa t ek absoluut ontken aangesien my
klein kinders agter in die bakkie lê en video kyk het op 'n klein TV. Tot vandag
kon ek geen milimeter vorder met Delta nie. Ek het die SABS gaan aanklop en
hulle het vir my 'n verslag gegee wat sê dat hulle van mening is dat die
bakkie geknak het weens oneweredige st aal. Selfs die SABS se verslag het
Delta geensins laat afwyk nie en die aange hegte foto’s is die weg wat ek nou
volg. Ek het ook gister vanaf ' n prokureur in Port Elizabeth verneem dat hulle
opdrag het om 'n interdik teen my aan te vra. Ek sal natuurlik hierdie interdik
ten sterkste teenstaan. Stuur hier die epos asseblief aan soveel mense
moontlik.
Groete
Jaco.’
[10] No innuendo is alleged. The test is whether a reader of
ordinary intelligence might reasonably understand the words in the
e-mail, in their ordinary sense, to have a mean ing which reduces
Delta in his or her estimation (Argus Printing and Publishing Co Ltd
9
v Esselen’s Estate).2 In my view the answer is no. Ignoring for the
time being the heading ‘Swakste 4 x 4 x Ver’, the e-mail contains
no adverse comment about Delta’s product generally or about this
particular vehicle. Its author rela tes the common c ause fact that
the chassis bent when the bakkie was a year and a day old and
had done 29 000 kilometres. He give s Delta’s view that this was
because its driver had abused the vehicle, a conclusion that was
reached because of marks on the exhaust and the rear suspension
which led to the belief that the vehicle must have been subjected
to an abnormal impact. He expl ains that he denies any such
impact because of the presence of his small children in the back of
the vehicle watching television. He then expresses dissatisfaction
with the way in which Delta has handled his complaint by saying
that he has made no progress w hatever with them, despite a
report from the SABS that the bent chassis was caused by
inconsistencies in its steel structure. He co mments that even this
report did not bring about any change in Delta’s attitude. He says
that his route is now to go the way of the attached photographs,
that he has been warned of an interdict and th at he will resist it
strenuously. He ends by asking the recipient to send his e-mail on.
It is evident that the author of the document has a dispute with
2 1994 (2) SA 1 (A) 20E – 21B.
10
Delta about his bakkie and that he is dissatisfied with Delta’s
reaction, but I can find nothing in the wording of the document
which is defamatory. There is nothing in w hat is said which might
induce the reasonable mind to thin k less of Delta or its products. It
can hardly be defamatory to say that in the writer’s view a vehicle
made by Delta had a defect, that this conclusion was supported by
a technical report, but that after an examination of its own Delta
refused to agree.
[11] I turn now to the words disp layed on the bakkie and on the
photographs of the bakkie. The res pondent makes the point that
these words do not mention Delt a, and that on a fair reading the
phrase ‘swakste 4 x 4 x ver; grondpad knak onderstel’ does not
refer to Delta’s products in general but to his specific vehicle
because, after all, it was only his vehicle whose chassis bent while
being driven on a gravel road. Th is may be so. But the slogan is
displayed on an Isuzu bakkie, a product manufactured by Delta,
and in my view when it calls the vehicle the worst four-wheel drive
vehicle by far, it reflects adv ersely not only on the particular
vehicle, but on the product generally. It rais es the possibility that
the product is suspect or inferior because what happened to this
vehicle could happen to other vehicles of the same make. In my
11
opinion, this is prima facie defamatory: a re ader of ordinary
intelligence might reasonably under stand the words to mean that
Izusu bakkies generally are the wors t 4 x 4 vehicles by far since
they cannot withstand normal use on gravel roads. This applies to
the words painted on the bakkie, the words shown on photographs
of the bakkie sent by e-mail, and the words in the heading of the e-
mail.
[12] Once the statement about Delta’s product is shown to be
prima facie defamatory, the onus is on the respondent to show that
publication thereof was not wrongf ul. The respondent seeks to do
so by relying on the exercise of hi s right to freedom of expression.
His defence is that of fair comment. There has always been
tension between the right to f reedom of expression, which is
protected inter alia by the defence of fair comment, and rights to
dignity, fama, and an unsullied reputation, which are protected by
the remedies for defamation. 3 The Constitutional Court has held in
Khumalo and others v Holomisa4 that the principles of the common
law as recently developed in National Media Limited and others v
3 Crawford v Albu 1917 AD 102; Argus Printing & Publishing Co Ltd and others v
Esselen’s Estate 1994 (2) SA 1 (A) 25 B-E; Hix Networking Technologies v System
Publishing (Pty) Ltd 1997 (1) SA 391 (SCA), 400D – 400F; National Media Limited and others
v Bogoshi 1998 (4) SA 1196, from 1207D; Khumalo and others v Holomisa 2002 (5) SA 401
(CC) para 21 – 28.
4 Footnote 3, para 35 – 45.
12
Bogoshi5 are consistent with the provisi ons of the Constitution and
maintain a proper balance between the right to reputation and the
right to freedom of expression. It remains to apply those principles
to the facts.
[13] For the defence of fair co mment to succeed, the respondent
must prove that the statement in question was a comment or
opinion and not an allegation of fa ct; that it was fair; that the
allegations of fact comment ed upon were true and accurately
stated; and that the comment wa s about a matter of public interest
(Marais v Richard en 'n ander ).6 ‘The use of the word “fair” . . . is
not very fortunate. It does not imply that the criticism for which
protection is sought must nece ssarily commend itself to the
judgment of the Court, nor that it must be impartial or well-
balanced. It merely means that such criticism must confine itself
within certain prescribed limits’.7 Those limits are that the comment
must be a genuine expression of opinion, it must be relevant, and
it may not be expressed maliciously.
8
[14] The words ‘swakste 4 x 4 x ver’ is an expression of the
respondent’s opinion, based on the factual allegation ‘grondpad
5 Footnote 3.
6 1981 (1) SA 1157 (A) at 1167F.
7 Crawford v Albu, footnote 3, at 114.
8 Marais v Richard en 'n ander, footnote 6, at 1167C – 1168C.
13
knak onderstel’. It is of general interest, particularly to the motoring
public and four-wheel drive enthusia sts. There is a dispute about
the factual allegation, which ca nnot be resolved on the papers.
These are motion proceedings, and Delta, as applicant, could have
asked for the dispute to be refe rred to oral evidence. It chose
instead to seek final relief on the papers. This brings into play the
general rule in Plascon-Evans Paints Limited v Van Riebeeck
Paints (Proprietary) Limited: ‘[W]here, in proceedings on notice of
motion, disputes of fact have ar isen on the affidavits, a final order,
whether it be an interdict or some other form of relief, may be
granted if those facts averred in the applicant's affidavits which
have been admitted by the resp ondent, together with the facts
alleged by the respondent, justify such an order’.9 The respondent
is entitled to discharge the onus of proving the truth of the
statement by calling upon the c ourt to disregard for purposes of
deciding the application Delta’s evidence which is disputed, and by
relying on the facts admitted and alleged by him and his witnesses
(Ngqumba v Staatspresident10). On those facts the chassis was
not subjected to any abnormal im pact or unusual forces which
could have caused it to bend. On the day before the chassis was
9 1984 (3) SA 623 (AD) at 634H-I.
10 1988 (4) SA 224 (A) at 259C-263D.
14
bent and on the day when it bent the bakkie was inspected by the
respondent and by other persons travelling the same route.
Everything was in order before he st arted to drive along the gravel
road that was to take him the la st 30 kilometres between Ruacane
and Kunene River Lodge. When he got to Kunene River Lodge the
chassis was found to be bent. What ever caused it to become bent
must have occurred during those 30 kilometres. The evidence is
that that stretch of road is not a good gravel road. It had many
potholes and corrugations. But it could be negotiated by an
ordinary motor-car (not necessarily a four-w heel drive vehicle) if
driven carefully. The road itself was not such as to cause damage
to the chassis of an ordinary vehicle, let alone a rugged four-by-
four wheel drive vehicle. T he respondent’s vehicle was not
overloaded or subjected to driver a buse, and there was no impact
or bump or other occurrence which could have caused its chassis
to become bent. On this version of the facts, the chassis was bent
for no reason other than being driven on the gravel road. The most
probable inference is that it wa s defective. For present purposes,
these facts, upon which the comment was based, must be
accepted as true.
15
[15] The comment ‘swakste 4 x 4 x ver’ is a skit on a well-known
advertisement of another product, which calls itself the best 4 x 4 x
far. The respondent’s adaptation of it is, of course, an
exaggeration. But this does not make the comment malicious or
change its nature to something ot her than a genuine expression of
opinion. There is no factual bas is for concluding that the
respondent was actuated by malice. In the circumstances the
description of the vehicle as th e worst 4 x 4 by far because its
chassis bent on a gravel road is a fair comment within the meaning
of that term in Marais v Richard en 'n ander 11. Furthermore, and in
so far as the comment is unders tood to extend to the product and
not merely to the respondent’s vehi cle, the inference that other
vehicles of the same make ma y present with similar problems on
gravel roads arises as a logica l and natural in ference and cannot
be regarded as unfair. It is part of the same fair comment. It is
obviously not a statement of fac t. The respondent has shown, for
the purposes of this applicati on, that he has not committed a
wrongful invasion of Delta’s rights when he displayed those words
on his bakkie, or when he dissem inated photographs of his bakkie
with the words on it, or when he used the words as a heading for
his e-mails.
11 Footnote 6.
16
[16] In the result Delta is not, on the facts it has alleged which are
admitted by the respondent together with the facts alleged by the
respondent, entitled to an interdict. The appeal is dismissed with
costs, which shall include the costs of two counsel.
RJW JONES
Acting Judge of Appeal
CONCUR
MPATI DP
BRAND JA
CONRADIE JA
CLOETE JA