[64] The first plaintiff was very critical of the character of the late Mr. Kheibeb and referred the court to a so-called confession’ wherein he admitted to ‘deathbed his wrongdoings. However, the first plaintiff referred to a document wherein Mr. Kheibeb appears to make peace with the rest of the members of Old Man Fishing and the plaintiff want the court to read some confession between the lines that is not there. There is a lot of speculation and conjecture on the part of the first plaintiff which have no substance in it. [65] The defendants denied that the statement never implied that the plaintiffs were dishonest or crooks or any other the adjectives that the plaintiffs wish to ascribe to them. The first defendant testified that in his opinion, there would be nothing wrong with someone holding shares on behalf of someone else and therefor he did not consider the statement to be defamatory. [66] I am of the considered opinion that is no link between the plea filed by the defendants in case I 3265/2013 and the newspaper article published 9 years prior. No reasonable person reading the statement would understand the plaintiffs to be and dishonest; crooks, criminals, not law abiding citizens and “corrupt without moral fibre” or that they fraudulently conspired and colluded to conceal or hide the real identity of the true beneficiary or owner of the shareholding in Old Man Fishing CC. [67] Presently, what is clear in this matter is that the statement alleged to be defamatory was not one communicated to various people but directly to the parties involved in court proceedings via a plea to the particulars of claim as prescribed by the rules of this court. [68] It is interesting that the plaintiffs did not sue the late Mr. Kheibeb or the two newspapers for defamation as the claim prescribed and it appears the current matter is the plaintiffs’ attempt to have a second bite to the proverbial cherry.
[64] The first plaintiff was very critical of the character of the late Mr. Kheibeb and referred the court to a so-called ‘deathbed confession’ wherein he admitted to his wrongdoings. However, the first plaintiff referred to a document wherein Mr. Kheibeb appears to make peace with the rest of the members of Old Man Fishing and the plaintiff want the court to read some confession between the lines that is not there. There is a lot of speculation and conjecture on the part of the first plaintiff which have no substance in it. [65] The defendants denied that the statement never implied that the plaintiffs were dishonest or crooks or any other the adjectives that the plaintiffs wish to ascribe to them. The first defendant testified that in his opinion, there would be nothing wrong with someone holding shares on behalf of someone else and therefor he did not consider the statement to be defamatory. [66] I am of the considered opinion that is no link between the plea filed by the defendants in case I 3265/2013 and the newspaper article published 9 years prior. No reasonable person reading the statement would understand the plaintiffs to be “corrupt and dishonest; crooks, criminals, not law abiding citizens and without moral fibre” or that they fraudulently conspired and colluded to conceal or hide the real identity of the true beneficiary or owner of the shareholding in Old Man Fishing CC. [67] Presently, what is clear in this matter is that the statement alleged to be defamatory was not one communicated to various people but directly to the parties involved in court proceedings via a plea to the particulars of claim as prescribed by the rules of this court. [68] It is interesting that the plaintiffs did not sue the late Mr. Kheibeb or the two newspapers for defamation as the claim prescribed and it appears the current matter is the plaintiffs’ attempt to have a second bite to the proverbial cherry.