ADVERTISEMENT:

 

 
 

Defamation case against newspapers suffers setback

Date: 24 September 2010 By: News Correspondent

The defamation case of a former municipal manager of the Makhado Municipality, Ms Faith Muthambi, suffered a setback last week when the case was struck off the High Court roll and she was ordered to pay costs to the second defendant, Zoutnet Publishers.

Ms Faith Muthambi, who is currently a Member of Parliament, filed papers in the Gauteng North High Court at the end of 2008, claiming that the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) and the two newspapers of Zoutnet, the Limpopo Mirror and the Zoutpansberger, had damaged her good reputation.

The alleged defamation of character stems from a protest march held by SAMWU in April 2008. During the protest march, SAMWU accused the municipal manager of corruption and nepotism. A memorandum was also handed over to the town’s mayor, in which the various grievances were set out. The more serious allegations concerned a tender of just over R3,7 million that had been awarded to a close friend of Ms Muthambi for the rehabilitation of a street in Waterval. The contract was never completed by the original contractor, in spite of his receiving an additional R2 million to complete it.

The Makhado Municipality’s executive committee recommended that Muthambi be suspended, but this was revoked, pending a full investigation into the matter. Muthambi was then put on 24 days´ special leave to allow Council to conduct an investigation into the allegations. When she returned to work after the 24 days, members of the South African Municipal Workers Union (SAMWU) immediately embarked on an illegal strike, downing tools and bringing service delivery to a halt out of protest against Muthambi’s return. Council soon afterwards decided to carry out their mandate to suspend Muthambi with full pay as from June 27.

From the onset, Muthambi contested the legality of her suspension with regard to the procedure followed. On September 15, 2008, the Labour Court ruled in her favour. This apparently caused somewhat of a dilemma for Council as promises had been allegedly made to SAMWU on a political level that Muthambi would not return to work. SAMWU again embarked on an illegal strike after Muthambi’s return and a court interdict had to be obtained to force their members to return to work.

Muthambi was not charged, but stayed at home with full pay for some five months after that. She also claimed a performance bonus in excess of R80 000. After a brief return to office, she resigned and it was announced that she had been deployed as a Member of Parliament. She was inaugurated as a new MP in May 2009.

In the meantime, the defamation case against SAMWU and Zoutnet proceeded, and a date for a hearing was eventually set for 15 September, 2010. According to the rules of the Gauteng North High Court, a pre-hearing must take place five weeks before the trial date. This hearing enables the various parties’ legal representatives to finalise arrangements and get everything in order for the trial. This hearing, which must be arranged by the plaintiff’s legal team, was only arranged in great haste the week before the trial and no signed minutes were filed.

On Wednesday (15th), Muthambi’s advocate, Adv. Kennedy Tsatsawane, argued that the case was not ready to proceed. He argued that this was mainly because Zoutnet had asked them for documents, such as an auditor’s report, which they were not the custodians of. His request for a postponement was supported by SAMWU’s legal representative, Adv. Phillip Sebola, who said that they were not ready to go to trial. Adv Sebola also argued that SAMWU had been told by the plaintiff in 2009 that she was not continuing with the case against the worker’s union. Advocate Matthew Welz, on behalf of Zoutnet, disagreed and stated that he was ready to proceed. Should the plaintiff wish to postpone the matter, they had to tender costs.

Acting judge Sapphire, who heard the case, was not very sympathetic towards Muthambi’s legal team nor that of SAMWU. He was clearly not convinced that they had valid excuses for a postponement and also questioned them on the fact that their clients were not present in court. The judge did not accept a late attempt from Adv Tsatsawane to hand in unsigned minutes of the pre-trial. When SAMWU’s representative, Adv Sebola, was asked to present more reasons for the postponement, he indicated that they needed to subpoena up to 15 witnesses. The judge remarked that the case had been filed more than two years ago and that Sebola should have done that by now.

Adv. Welz argued that his client was a small town publisher who got dragged into such litigation at great expense. He told the court that his client was merely acting in a responsible manner by reporting on events that had occurred in public. He said that Zoutnet wanted the trial to proceed as soon as possible.

Judge Sapphire ordered that the case be struck off the roll and that both the plaintiff and the first defendant (SAMWU) pay costs to the second defendant (Zoutnet). The case may not be placed on the roll until such time as all the costs have been paid.

High-court cases are extremely expensive and Ms. Muthambi’s account for Wednesday can easily be more than R50 000. Apart from having to pay for her own legal team, comprising lawyers and an advocate, she now also has to pay the bill of Zoutnet’s legal team, the cost of getting the witnesses to court and all the costs of setting up a pre-trial and pre-trial consultation.

 
 
 

Viewed: 2757

 

 
 

News Correspondent

Correspondent journalists from all over the region supply us with news and sport articles. 

 
 

More photos... 

ADVERTISEMENT

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT:

 
 

ADVERTISEMENT