Log in or register
Share on LinkedInShare on LinkedIn

ARTICLE · 08 DECEMBER 2016

Bite Your Tongue!

ENS
Explore more from ENS

Witnesses giving evidence before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA") should take care when making statements that may expose them to defamation claims.

South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Qaqamba Moeletsi
Qaqamba Moeletsi
Author LinkedIn connections

Witnesses giving evidence before the Commission for Conciliation, Mediation and Arbitration ("CCMA") should take care when making statements that may expose them to defamation claims.

This issue arose in the recent case of Clover SA (Pty) Ltd and Another v Sintwa, in which the High Court heard a damages claim arising from defamatory statements made by a witness while giving evidence before the CCMA.

In this case, Harrison Sintwa was employed by Clover SA (Pty) Ltd ("Clover") as a team leader, reporting to Frederick Bopp, a production manager. He was responsible for, among other things, checking machines and products to ensure that they passed the relevant standards before being dispatched to the market and was required to sign a daily operator report ("DOR") to confirm that the relevant checks were done.

We operate a free-to-view policy, asking only that you register in order to read all of our content. Please login or register to view the rest of this article.

Register for freeORLog in

View source

Related Articles

Legal Intelligence Newsletters: sign up for the latest legal and regulatory news on your chosen topics

Read more about

Related Comparative Guides

See more popular content from

Article

Ghost Authorities: AI Hallucinations In The Courtroom

A South African Labour Court has stayed disciplinary proceedings after discovering that the chairperson's ruling relied on AI-generated, fictitious case citations. The judgment examines whether blind reliance on artificial intelligence tools constitutes a failure to apply independent legal reasoning, and what consequences flow from submitting fabricated authorities to courts and tribunals.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

End Of Concurrent Jurisdiction: Understanding The New Jurisdictional Boundaries In The Gauteng Division Of The High Court Of South Africa

A significant jurisdictional change has taken effect in South Africa's Gauteng Division of the High Court, ending the concurrent jurisdiction between Johannesburg and Pretoria seats that existed since 2018. Each seat now has defined geographical boundaries based on magisterial districts, requiring practitioners to carefully determine proper jurisdiction when instituting proceedings.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

Rescission Refused: Negligence Is Not Good Cause Under Rule 42(1)(a) Or The Common Law

The Supreme Court of Appeal examines whether a pension fund can successfully rescind a default judgment when its absence from proceedings resulted from internal administrative failures. The case explores the boundaries between procedural error and voluntary default, testing whether gross negligence in responding to legal process can be excused by the strength of a potential defence.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
ENS
ENS
Article

No Easy Escape From Gauteng’s Mandatory Mediation Regime

A recent Gauteng High Court judgment confirms that mandatory court-annexed mediation cannot be avoided simply because parties are hostile toward each other or believe the process will be futile. The court ordered an uncooperative defendant to participate in mediation, establishing that only exceptional circumstances will excuse parties from the process introduced by the Directive and Protocol.
South AfricaLitigation, Mediation & Arbitration
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr
Cliffe Dekker Hofmeyr