[354] The plaintiff’s claim is for damages in the amount of N$500 000. Mr stood by the plaintiff’s heads of argument on quantum. Therein he Namandje persisted that this amount is fair and reasonable and should be awarded. He submitted that it is aggravating that the defendants did not apologize or publish a retraction, although they came to know one day after the publication that the article contained several inaccuracies. [355] I do not think that the explanation given by the plaintiff to the third defendant after publication was such that it was reasonable to expect a wholesale apology or retraction of all the allegations made in the article merely on the basis of his explanation. I think it would have been reasonable for the defendants to first follow up certain aspects of his version. However, I do think that in those respects in which he provided them with documentary proof, rectification could have been made, e.g. on the issue of Ms Mndawe’s SA licence and the reasons for the withdrawal of the validation as set out in Exh I also think that it would have “A”. been reasonable to at least publish his version. I bear these factors in mind in favour of the plaintiff’s claim. [356] The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the defendants’ counsel made unfounded allegations during cross-examination of the plaintiff that the latter cut corners in relation to various matters in the context of his work or profession, while it was the defendants’ witness, Mr van Niekerk, who admitted that he had cut corners in certain aspects of his work. Counsel further submitted that this conduct constitutes an aggravating feature. I do not agree with this submission. Witnesses sometimes have to withstand robust cross-examination while the cross-examiner’s suggestions do not always sit well with them. The suggestions of cutting corners in this case were within permissible limits in the context in which they were made and the plaintiff had ample opportunity to deny them, which he did. I also do not think it is appropriate to place Mr van Niekerk’s frank (and appropriate) admission (which, as I have indicated before, reflects positively upon his credibility) into the scale when considering the context in which it was made and when weighing the factors relevant to the determination of the amount of
[354] The plaintiff’s claim is for damages in the amount of N$500 000. Mr Namandje stood by the plaintiff’s heads of argument on quantum. Therein he persisted that this amount is fair and reasonable and should be awarded. He submitted that it is aggravating that the defendants did not apologize or publish a retraction, although they came to know one day after the publication that the article contained several inaccuracies. [355] I do not think that the explanation given by the plaintiff to the third defendant after publication was such that it was reasonable to expect a wholesale apology or retraction of all the allegations made in the article merely on the basis of his explanation. I think it would have been reasonable for the defendants to first follow up certain aspects of his version. However, I do think that in those respects in which he provided them with documentary proof, rectification could have been made, e.g. on the issue of Ms Mndawe’s SA licence and the reasons for the withdrawal of the validation as set out in Exh “A”. I also think that it would have been reasonable to at least publish his version. I bear these factors in mind in favour of the plaintiff’s claim. [356] The plaintiff’s counsel submitted that the defendants’ counsel made unfounded allegations during cross-examination of the plaintiff that the latter cut corners in relation to various matters in the context of his work or profession, while it was the defendants’ witness, Mr van Niekerk, who admitted that he had cut corners in certain aspects of his work. Counsel further submitted that this conduct constitutes an aggravating feature. I do not agree with this submission. Witnesses sometimes have to withstand robust cross-examination while the cross-examiner’s suggestions do not always sit well with them. The suggestions of cutting corners in this case were within permissible limits in the context in which they were made and the plaintiff had ample opportunity to deny them, which he did. I also do not think it is appropriate to place Mr van Niekerk’s frank (and appropriate) admission (which, as I have indicated before, reflects positively upon his credibility) into the scale when considering the context in which it was made and when weighing the factors relevant to the determination of the amount of
Nyandoro%20v%20Free%20Press%20of%20Namibia%20(Pty)%20Ltd%20(I%202572-2010)%20%5B2015%5D%20NAHCMD%20116%20(11%20August%202015).docx