Show simple item record

dc.date.accessioned 2017-04-08T17:04:46Z
dc.date.available 2017-04-08T17:04:46Z
dc.date.created 2006-01-23 en
dc.identifier.citation 2006 (6) SA 235 (CC)
dc.identifier.citation 2007 (1) BCLR 1 (CC)
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12144/2489
dc.title Dikoko v Mokhatla en
dc.title.alternative CCT62/05 en
dc.identifier.casenumber CCT62/05 en
dc.contributor.judge Mokgoro J Majority judgment on the merits
dc.contributor.judge Moseneke DCJ Majority judgment on the issue of quantum; Skweyiya J dissenting judgment on the issue of quantum
dc.contributor.judge Sachs J separate judgment
dc.date.judgment 3 August 2006
dc.link.judgment http://collections.concourt.org.za/bitstream/handle/20.500.12144/2489/Full%20judgment%20%28461%20Kb%29-7541.pdf?sequence=9&isAllowed=y
dc.concourt.synopsis In dealing with statements made by a municipal councillor, the majority held, in a judgment by Mokgoro J, that defamatory statements made outside of the business of the Municipal Council are not privileged. Privilege does not extend to municipal councillors not performing the real and legitimate business of the Council. Privilege in respect of provincial legislatures is granted only to members of the provincial legislature. Appellate courts will only interfere with damages awards where special circumstances warranting such interference exist.
dc.concourt.casehistory Application for leave to appeal against the judgment and order of the Transvaal High Court: Mokhatla v Dikoko, TPD 31668/2, 24 May 2005, Unreported


Files in this item

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search ConCourt Collections


Browse

My Account