legal practitioners owes the duty to the court first and then to their clients. Hausiku v The Master of the High Court (A 13/2016) [2016] NAHCMD 392 (15 December 2016). DEFAMATION Law of Defamation Defamatory remarks made to prominent members of society and – to the media through media statements Plaintiff is the Inspector-General of NAMPOL – Statements made accusing the plaintiff of being a liar and perjurer Defence that the – – statements made are true and in the public interest Test to be applied by the courts in – Defamation cases Proof of defamatory statements raised the rebuttable presumption – that such statements are wrongful and intentional The plaintiff need not allege nor – prove the falsity of the defamatory statement and need not allege anything more than his or her existence in a particular society where it is alleged that his or her reputation was damaged in the eyes of the community at large In order to rebut the presumption – of wrongfulness, a defendant may show that the statement was true and that it was in the public benefit for it to be made; or that the statement constituted fair comment; or that the statement was made on a privileged occasion Defendant failed to prove that – such statements privileged or that public policy justifies the publication Statements – found to be defamatory Defence not succeeding Quantum of damages reduced to – – be aligned with previous awards. Ndeitunga v Kavaongelwa (I 3967/2009) [2016] NAHCMD 99 (11 April 2016). DELICT Defamation meaning and elements defences public interest, privilege, Delict – – – – truthfulness. Bednarek & Others v Hannam & Another (I 2615/2013) [2016] NAHCMD 12 (03 February 2016). Damages Quantum See Shivute v Endjala (I 1876/2014] [2016] NAHCMD 13 (19 – – November 2015). Delict Vacarious liability of employer - An employee who is clearly mandated to work – within certain guidelines but decides to deviate from the scope of authority of his or her employer and the deviation is remotely detached from his mandate is solely – responsible for his or her deeds. An employer cannot be held vicariously liable for – those deeds. In that determination the court applied both subjective and objective –
legal practitioners owes the duty to the court first and then to their clients. Hausiku v The Master of the High Court (A 13/2016) [2016] NAHCMD 392 (15 December 2016). DEFAMATION Law of Defamation – Defamatory remarks made to prominent members of society and to the media through media statements – Plaintiff is the Inspector-General of NAMPOL – Statements made accusing the plaintiff of being a liar and perjurer – Defence that the statements made are true and in the public interest – Test to be applied by the courts in Defamation cases – Proof of defamatory statements raised the rebuttable presumption that such statements are wrongful and intentional – The plaintiff need not allege nor prove the falsity of the defamatory statement and need not allege anything more than his or her existence in a particular society where it is alleged that his or her reputation was damaged in the eyes of the community at large – In order to rebut the presumption of wrongfulness, a defendant may show that the statement was true and that it was in the public benefit for it to be made; or that the statement constituted fair comment; or that the statement was made on a privileged occasion – Defendant failed to prove that such statements privileged or that public policy justifies the publication – Statements found to be defamatory – Defence not succeeding – Quantum of damages reduced to be aligned with previous awards. Ndeitunga v Kavaongelwa (I 3967/2009) [2016] NAHCMD 99 (11 April 2016). DELICT Delict – Defamation – meaning and elements – defences – public interest, privilege, truthfulness. Bednarek & Others v Hannam & Another (I 2615/2013) [2016] NAHCMD 12 (03 February 2016). Damages – Quantum – See Shivute v Endjala (I 1876/2014] [2016] NAHCMD 13 (19 November 2015). Delict – Vacarious liability of employer - An employee who is clearly mandated to work within certain guidelines but decides to deviate from the scope of authority of his or her employer and the deviation is remotely detached from his mandate – is solely responsible for his or her deeds. – An employer cannot be held vicariously liable for those deeds. – In that determination the court applied both subjective and objective
2016%20Unreported%20high%20Court%20Civil%20Judgment%20Index.docx