Body Corporates Beware: Defamation in Sectional Title Schemes

Body
Corporates
Beware:
Defamation in Sectional Title Schemes

The Basic
Elements of
Defamation
A delictual claim under South
African civil law.

Element #1:
False
Statement
The defamatory statement must
be proven to be false (on a
balance of probabilities).

Element #2:
Harm
The defamatory statement must
have caused harm to the
reputation of the plaintiff.

Element #3: Publication
• The defamatory statement must refer to the
plaintiff.
• The defamatory statement must be made known
to a third party other than the plaintiff or the
defendant either by writing (libel) or verbally
(slander).

Examples
of Slander
in a Body
Corporate
Unit Owner A makes a false
statement that Unit Owner J is
being sequestrated and
foreclosed at an Annual General
Meeting.
Body Corporate Chairman O
makes a false statement that a
registered Professional Land
Surveyor has committed fraud at
an Annual General Meeting.

Examples of Libel in a Body Corporate
Former Trustee A makes false statements via email (sent to
multiple other owners) that Unit Owner J is illegally parking on
common property, when Unit Owner J is parked within a
registered Exclusive Use Area.
Unit Owner A makes false statements via email (sent to multiple
other owners) that accuse specific owners and occupants of
creating network names that Unit Owner A finds offensive.

Case Law
Body Corporate of Sunnyside Gardens v Perreira

Paragraph 1:
“This is an appeal against an order and judgment, in a
defamation action, delivered by Magistrate J Rodrigues of
the District of Tshwane Central Magistrates Court on 3 May
2022. The appellant is the Body Corporate of Sunnyside
Gardens (the Body Corporate or the appellant), a body
corporate established in terms of section 36 of the
Sectional Titles Act 95 of 1986 (the Act). The respondent,
Mr Eduardo Perreira, is the plaintiff in the defamation
action. He is the owner of Unit 16 in Sunnyside Gardens
Sectional Title Scheme (Sunnyside Gardens).”

Paragraphs 2-3:
“At the centre of the case is a letter written by attorneys Kleynhans &
Swanepoel from the Body Corporate to Perreira (the letter) concerning
Perreira’s conduct at Sunnyside Gardens. Specifically, that Perreira was
using his garage for an impermissible purpose – a carpentry business –
and in doing so, he was illegitimately using the electricity of the common
property and causing a nuisance to his neighbours.”
“The magistrate found that the letter, which was dated 17 November
2015 and which was sent to all members of the Board of Trustees of
Sunnyside Gardens and its managing agent, was defamatory of the
plaintiff and awarded R50 000 in damages with interest and costs. The
appellant asks that the magistrate’s order be set aside with costs and
replaced with an order that the defamation action be dismissed with
costs. Perreira defends the judgment and order.”

Paragraph 46:
“…An ordinary person of reasonable intelligence would have
understood the letter to convey that Perreira was not merely
accused of wrongdoing based on complaints received but was
guilty of wrongdoing. The letter was defamatory both on its
plain meaning, and because it implied squarely, that Perreira
does not abide the rules and misuses the common property
electricity for his personal use, effectively by stealing
it. Contrary to the submission of the appellant, and as the
Magistrate found, the letter as framed did not merely inform
Perreira of complaints that have been received and provide an
opportunity to respond thereto. The letter as framed, squarely
concluded, not least implied, that Perreira was guilty of the
conduct.”

Paragraph 52:
“…The Magistrate was cognisance of the absence of an apology and the
absence of any proof of the wrongdoing or even an opportunity to
respond. The appellant’s suggestion that the extent of the publication
was minimal cannot be sustained given the context and factors personal
to Perreira, of which the Magistrate, in applying her mind to the eventual
award, was clearly aware. A retiree living in a small community and being
humiliated therein, losing trust of his community. His whole world was
thereby affected by an accusation of being a person who steals
electricity from the common property and is a nuisance to his
neighbours. Further, it was wholly predictable that the body corporate
would ultimately have learnt what had been done in its name, not least
after the threat of litigation and the failure to respond to the invitation to
apologise. What happened would have harmed the reputation of anyone,
but especially a retired person living in the complex which to Perreira,
was his community.’"

Paragraph 54:
“The Magistrate, in a well-balanced and substantial judgment,
weighed up both sides of the conflict. I find no reason to interfere
with the judgment and order of the magistrate in the trial
court. Hence the following order:
(i) The appeal is dismissed with costs.
(ii) The judgment and order, including the award of R50,000 as
given by the trial magistrate, is upheld.”

Remember:
In South Africa,
everyone has the
right to dignity.
Section 10 of the South African Constitution, 1996

In short, be careful what you say or write
in a body corporate.

Body Corporates Beware: Defamation in Sectional Title Schemes

Related slideshows

More Related Content

Similar to Body Corporates Beware: Defamation in Sectional Title Schemes

Similar to Body Corporates Beware: Defamation in Sectional Title Schemes (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Body Corporates Beware: Defamation in Sectional Title Schemes