Student no: 60757914

Student Number: 60757914

LPL4802
Assignment 02
Unique No: 521376
Due date: 27 March 2023

1
Student no: 60757914

2
 Student no: 60757914

ESSAY RUBRIC: 2023

MOULE: LPL802 – Assignment 01
CRITERIA 1 2 3 4 5
CASE Returns Select Attempts Selects Distinctly
ANALYSIS facts of the specific to specific selects only
case without ideas examine relevant relevant
understandin from the some ideas and ideas from
g case ideas from fully the case
without the case analyses and fully
analysis them analyses
them in a
way that
answers the
question
LANGUAGE Fragmented Gramma Correct Essay Excellent
USE and error- r largely grammar largely choice of
prone essay, incorrect with very error-free. vocabulary.
very difficult , and few basic A Essay
to follow basic errors. deliberate entirely
languag Easy to choice of error free
e follow the words to
mistakes argument emphasise
still a point
evident
EVELOPMENT Haphazard An An Most ideas Deliberate
OF IDEAS statement of attempt attempt to given full use of
ideas. Ideas to set the context. specific
regurgitated answer context Use of phrase and
without any the and tie logical conjunction
thought question, some conjunction s fully set
but most ideas to s to the context;
ideas are the connect displays
discusse question most of the advanced
d nor tied ideas writing skills
to the
question
ORGANISATIO No Use Some Very clear Excellent
N paragraphs, same ideas are and logical paragraphin
mixed font font, but discussed paragraph g style, with
sizes and makes in that a very clear
types – clear no separate discuss intent of
sign of attempt paragraph separate arranging
regurgitation to s ideas ideas.
of ideas integrate Paragraph
or breaks
separate establish
different cohesion
ideas

3
 Student no: 60757914

LEVEL OF Very limited Fairly Adequate Most of the All relevant

CONTENT ideas. No adequat ideas ideas are ideas raised
attempt to e ideas raised- raised and which fully
reference raised. accepted discussed and clearly
the ideas Some style of logically. answer the
attempt referencin Full and question.
to g correct Advanced
referenc referencing referencing
e ideas style used style,
consistentl footnotes
y used
throughout adequately
the essay. to advance
individual
opinion.

4
 Student no: 60757914

Defamation can be defined as the unlawful and international publication of a

defamatory statement concerning another person which has the effect of lowering the
good reputation of that person who has been defamed.1 The law of defamation is
based on the actio iniuriarim and it serves to protect a person whose personality right
have been infringed. The elements that need to be proved to claim defamation are,
the wrongful, international, publication of a defamatory statement concerning another.2
The onus of prove rests on the person claiming defamation to prove the above
elements. Defamation lies in the right to dignity and the right to freedom.
In the case of the Economic Freedom Fighters,3 the court stated that an unliquidated
claim for damages must be pursued by institution of an action. This case was brought
before the High Court because Mr Manuel approached the court after the political party
posted a statement on Twitter, which the respondent claimed that the statement was
false and damaging to his reputation and the publication of such was unlawful. Mr
Manuel sough an order directing the applicant to withdraw their statement made as it
was defamatory to him, and this was denied. The respondent instituted a motion
proceeding in the High court.
In terms of the Room Hire case,4 there are certain classes of cases which are
matrimonial causes and illiquid claims for damages, in which motion proceedings are
not permissible at all. The Economic Freedom Fighter defended that their statements
we true and in public interest and were fair comments on the grounds that none of the
statements were in fact true. The court accepted that Manuel had met the
requirements for the declaratory and interdictory relief and he succeeded in showing
that he had been unlawfully defamed by the Economic Freedom Fighter. The
Economic Freedom Fighter produced no evidence that Mr Manuel and Kieswetter
were related, or they were business associates.
In term of the Rule 17(2),5 it forces a person claiming unliquidated to use summons
and file particulars of claims and Rule 18(10),6 it obliges a plaintiff suing for damages
to set them out in such a manner as will enable the defendant reasonably to assess
the quantum thereof. And Rule 18(4), it states that a pleading must contain a clear and
concise statement of the facts which a pleader relies for a claim, defence or answer to
any pleading as the case maybe with sufficient particularity to enable the opposite
party to replay. The court held that such a reasonable Twitter user who follows Mr
Malema would understand the tweet to mean that Mr Manuel is corrupt, nepotistic and
has conducted an appointment process for SARS Commissioner Secretly. In a
deliberate attempt to disguise his familial relationship with Mr Kieswetter. The
statement obviously tarnished Mr Manuel’s reputation and was therefore defamatory.

1 Burchell JM, The Law of Defamation in South Africa (Juta, 1985).

2 Burchell, The Law of Defamation in South Africa.
3 Economic Freedom Fighters and others v Manuel 2021 (3) SA 425 (SCA).
4 Room Hire Co (Pty) v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T).
5 Rule 17(2) of the Uniform Rules of the High Court.
6 The Uniform Rules of the High Court.

5
 Student no: 60757914

In this case the court afforded an opportunity to determine the amount that is just after
considering the number of factors that are brought at trial. It held that in the National
Director of Public v Zuma case,7 that motion proceedings are not suitable dealing with
factual disputes as they are aimed to resolve legal issues, unless those circumstances
are special, they also cannot be used to resolve factual issues. If Mr Manuel failed to
meet the requirement of Rule 18(10),8 it will provide a defendant to resort to the
provisions of Rule 18(12), in terms of which the pleadings would be deemed irregular.

In terms of the Economic Freedom Fighters case,9 on the close of pleadings, evidence
led in an attempt to justify the number of damages claimed. The factors that are being
considered by a trial court in this case for determining a suitable award are, the
character and status of the plaintiff, its envisaged and actual impact on the plaintiff and
the conduct of the person who made the defamatory statement.10 All these factors
may affect the plaintiffs standing in trial.
The Supreme Court of Appeal has confused the process of bringing evidence to court
with the process of testing the evidence. If the evidence is brought via viva voce
evidence and it can be issued to cross-examine evidence. This was because Mr
Manuel had urged the court to develop the common law in terms of section 39(2), 11 it
provides the effective and expeditious relief in the form of permitting them to claim
damages. And in term of Rule 31(2)(a), the court must hear oral evidence in a trial set
in terms of Rule 31(4) before the court may grant judgement in illiquid judgement.
In Dorfling case,12 the cause of action is delictual, damages can be determined after
the evidence has been led in relation to the cause of action for assaults or defamation.
In terms of the Economic Freedom Fighters case, motion proceedings are particularly
unsuited to the prosecution of claims for unliquidated damages, whether in relation to
defamation or otherwise.

7 National Director of Public Prosecution v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA) [26].
8 The Uniform Rules of the High Court.
9 Economic Freedom Fighters and others v Manuel 2021 (3) SA 425 (SCA).
10 Potgieter, Steynberg and Floyd, Law of Damage ( 3ed, Juta).
11 Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
12 Dorfling v Coetzee 1979 (2) SA 632 (NC).

6
 Student no: 60757914

Bibliography
Books
Burchell, The Law of Defamation in South Africa
Burchell JM, The Law of Defamation in South Africa (Juta, 1985)

Potgieter, Steynberg and Floyd, Law of Damage ( 3ed, Juta)

Potgieter JM, Steynberg L and Floyd TB, Law of Damage (3ed, Juta)

Cases
Economic Freedom Fighters and others v Manuel 2021 (3) SA 425 (SCA)

Dorfling v Coetzee 1979 (2) SA 632 (NC)

National Director of Public Prosecution v Zuma 2009 (2) SA 277 (SCA)

Room Hire Co (Pty) v Jeppe Street Mansions (Pty) Ltd 1949 (3) SA 1155 (T)

Legislation
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996

The Uniform Rules of the High Court