477:; and a final minority judgment written by Justice Skweyiya alone. An additional introduction, attributed to the Court, outlined the court's order and the justices' various points of agreement and disagreement. The order upheld the three students' appeal insofar as it set aside the R45,000 damages award in favour of a R25,000 award. It also set aside the favourable costs order that the Supreme Court of Appeal had granted to Dey; the students were ordered to pay costs in the High Court only. However, the students were also ordered to tender an unconditional apology to Dey.
31:
415:; the cause of action based on defamation itself encompassed the second cause of action, because "any defamation is in the first instance an affront to a person’s dignity which is aggravated by publication. Someone who is not affronted by a publication and who does not feel humiliated will not sue for defamation."
484:
Of the eight justices who supported the court's order, six – those who joined in Brand's judgment – did so by upholding the
Supreme Court of Appeal's finding of defamation. Froneman and Cameron agreed with Acting Judge of Appeal Griesel, the lone dissenter in the Supreme Court, that Dey had not been
480:
The order itself was written by one of the minorities, Froneman and
Cameron, but had the concurrence of Brand's majority judgment. The justices were unanimous in joining Justice Yacoob's factual exposition and determination on the grant of leave to appeal and the dismissal of an application to lead
422:
was the only dissenting vote in the
Supreme Court of Appeal: he agreed with the majority's order but dissented on the finding of defamation. Griesel held that the court was obliged to consider the natural meaning of the picture to its intended audience, the defendants and their classmates; to this
315:
a photo of two naked bodybuilders so that it appeared to depict the school's principal and vice-principal engaged in sexual activity. Le Roux sent the photo to a friend, who sent it on to seventeen-year-old
Burgert Christiaan Gildenhuys; Gildenhuys printed the photo out to show it around at the
402:
for delictual liability did not generally require "consciousness of wrongfulness". Moreover, he dismissed the students' argument that "jest excludes the intention to injure". The students' counsel had correctly conceded that the students' intent was to ridicule Dey, and that was sufficient to
437:
it is not open to the defendants to rely on jest as a defence against the claim based on iniuria. It does not protect them in these circumstances where they foresaw the possibility that their attempts at humour might be perceived as insulting, offensive or degrading by the
535:
had expressed concurrence with paragraphs 181 to 189 of
Cameron and Froneman's minority judgment, which set out that "It is not, and should not be considered to be, an actionably injurious slight to offend someone’s feelings by merely classing them in a condition the
544:. The newspaper pointed out that, "in what must surely be unique in South African legal history", Mogoeng had not written to provide reasons for dissenting from this point, and argued that he was obligated to do so.
406:
However, the
Supreme Court of Appeal diverged from the High Court in dismissing Dey's second claim, that based on an asserted affront to dignity. Harms wrote that a single defamatory act could not give rise to two
331:(the infringement of reputation). The students, however, argued that the publication of the picture was intended as a joke and perceived as such. They therefore denied that their conduct met the element of
974:
370:
upheld both of Dey's claims, finding that the publication of the doctored image inflicted both humiliation and defamation. The court awarded damages in a composite amount of
442:
In this regard, Griesel held that the defendants' conduct did amount to an actionable impairment of the plaintiff's dignity. He therefore supported the majority's order.
429:
485:
defamed but that his dignity had been actionably injured. All eight agreed on the legal principles to be applied in adjudicating defamation, wrongfulness, and
514:
as a remedy for civil delict. However, several legal commentators were highly critical of the majority judgment, including on the grounds that it neglected
433:, Griesel held that the tastelessness of a joke did not "transform a bad joke into a defamatory statement". However, Griesel agreed with the majority that
979:
394:
On 30 March 2010, the appellate court dismissed the students' appeal and upheld Dey's cross-appeal. Writing for the majority, Deputy Judge
President
984:
457:
The bench was split along several, partly overlapping lines. The justices filed four separate judgments: a majority judgment by Acting
Justice
375:
100:
403:
establish their liability. The majority also found in Dey's favour on costs, though it did not increase the High Court's R45,000 award.
451:
272:
41:
915:
789:
316:
school, and a third student, seventeen-year-old
Reinardt Janse van Rensburg, placed the picture on the school's notice board.
710:"Revisiting the constitutionalisation of the common law of personality: transformative constitutionalism and Le Roux v Dey"
398:
agreed with the lower court that the picture was defamatory and its publication wrongful. He held that the requirement of
537:
519:
336:
332:
324:
312:
292:
276:
454:. The matter was heard in the Constitutional Court on 26 August 2010, and judgment was handed down on 8 March 2011.
363:
111:
943:
496:, while Justice Skweyiya both joined in Yacoob's dissent and wrote a separate opinion to elucidate his reasons.
481:
further evidence; they were also unanimous in joining
Froneman and Cameron's argument about apology as a remedy.
115:
586:
560:
423:
audience, he argued, the picture would be immediately recognisable as an "attempt at humour". Citing Justice
638:
492:
Justice Yacoob dissented, finding that the majority's judgment did not adequately protect children or their
304:
30:
291:
to a high school vice-principal who had been defamed by three of his pupils through the publication of a
666:"In Dissent: A Critical Review of the Minority Judgment of Yacoob J, Le Roux v Dey 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC)"
493:
240:
319:
The vice-principal depicted in the picture, Louis Dey, sued the three students. He sought sentimental
812:
709:
515:
230:
419:
395:
367:
504:
The judgment attracted academic interest for its attempt to "constitutionalise" the common law of
505:
371:
249:
527:
896:
865:
770:
729:
687:
474:
612:
885:"Failing children: the courts disregard of the best interests of the child in Le Roux v Dey"
855:
760:
721:
677:
510:
341:
224:
860:
813:"The heteronormative observer: the Constitutional Court's decision in Le Roux v Dey: notes"
532:
408:
155:
462:
135:
968:
541:
466:
107:
379:
139:
748:
725:
665:
84:
765:
682:
458:
424:
383:
284:
171:
790:"The Constitutional Court Loses Its (and Our) Sense of Humour: Le Roux v. Dey"
470:
328:
280:
235:
167:
163:
159:
151:
147:
900:
869:
843:
774:
749:"Defamation of School Teachers by Learners: Le Roux v Dey 2011 3 SA 274 (CC)"
733:
691:
461:, joined by five other justices; a minority judgment co-written by Justices
143:
450:
The three students appealed the Supreme Court of Appeal's judgment to the
308:
884:
320:
311:. The first student, fifteen-year-old Hendrick Pieter Le Roux, crudely
288:
186:
Brand AJ (Ngcobo, Moseneke, Khampepe, Mogoeng and Nkabinde concurring)
303:
The case arose in 2006 from the conduct of three students at
844:"Le Roux v Dey and Children's Rights Approaches to Judging"
540:
protects", as the students' image of Dey classed him as
374:
45,000. The three students appealed the judgment to the
287:. A majority of the court upheld the award of monetary
747:
Neethling, J.; Potgieter, J. M. (8 September 2021).
382:
by Dey, who sought damages in a higher amount and a
214:
206:
198:
190:
182:
177:
131:
126:
96:
91:
80:
72:
57:
47:
37:
23:
522:. It was also criticised in the mainstream media.
430:Laugh It Off Promotions v South African Breweries
469:; another minority judgment written by Justice
279:. It was the court's first decision on alleged
664:Buthelezi, Michael Celumusa (31 August 2021).
508:and for Cameron and Froneman's revival of the
87:; 2011 (3) SA 274 (CC); 2011 (6) BCLR 577 (CC)
944:"Where to for jurisprudence in South Africa?"
916:"Constitutional Court can make a mistake too"
8:
811:Barnard-Naudé, Jaco; de Vos, Pierre (2011).
531:also noted that all of the justices except
975:Constitutional Court of South Africa cases
29:
20:
859:
764:
681:
587:"There will be no laughing in the court"
122:(21377/06) (28 October 2008, unreported)
639:"Principal's pic defamation – ConCourt"
552:
938:
936:
714:South African Journal on Human Rights
561:"Klofies defamation case in ConCourt"
7:
848:Potchefstroom Electronic Law Journal
703:
701:
452:Constitutional Court of South Africa
378:, and the judgment was additionally
273:Constitutional Court of South Africa
42:Constitutional Court of South Africa
349:(intent to injure the plaintiff).
914:Grootes, Stephen (10 March 2011).
861:10.17159/1727-3781/2018/v21i0a3075
386:on a more stringent scale.
327:(the infringement of dignity) and
14:
980:South African defamation case law
842:Couzens, Meda (29 January 2018).
985:2011 in South African case law
446:Constitutional Court judgments
202:Yacoob J (Skweyiya concurring)
1:
726:10.1080/02587203.2020.1867482
708:Visser, C. J. (2 July 2020).
766:10.17159/obiter.v32i3.12244
683:10.17159/obiter.v33i3.12144
520:best interests of the child
277:South African law of delict
1001:
364:High Court of South Africa
362:The suit was heard in the
271:is a 2011 decision of the
112:High Court of South Africa
889:South African Law Journal
817:South African Law Journal
794:South African Law Journal
345:, insofar as they lacked
219:
52:Le Roux and Others v Dey
28:
268:Le Roux and Others v Dey
105:Le Roux and Others v Dey
16:South African legal case
948:The Mail & Guardian
617:The Mail & Guardian
613:"A costly school prank"
591:The Mail & Guardian
418:Acting Judge of Appeal
390:Supreme Court of Appeal
376:Supreme Court of Appeal
194:Froneman and Cameron JJ
120:Dey v Le Roux en Andere
108:[2010] ZASCA 41
101:Supreme Court of Appeal
473:and joined by Justice
440:
61:8 March 2011
788:Fagan, Anton (2011).
494:freedom of expression
435:
313:digitally manipulated
293:digitally manipulated
241:freedom of expression
85:[2011] ZACC 4
883:Mills, Lize (2014).
305:Hoërskool Waterkloof
528:Mail & Guardian
368:Pretoria High Court
337:delictual liability
427:'s concurrence in
516:children's rights
487:animus iniuriandi
475:Thembile Skweyiya
409:causes of actions
400:animus iniuriandi
347:animus iniuriandi
264:
263:
231:children's rights
992:
960:
959:
957:
955:
940:
931:
930:
928:
926:
911:
905:
904:
880:
874:
873:
863:
839:
833:
832:
830:
828:
808:
802:
801:
785:
779:
778:
768:
744:
738:
737:
720:(2–3): 242–260.
705:
696:
695:
685:
661:
655:
654:
652:
650:
635:
629:
628:
626:
624:
619:. 27 August 2010
609:
603:
602:
600:
598:
583:
577:
576:
574:
572:
567:. 25 August 2010
557:
511:amende honorable
413:actio iniuriarum
342:actio iniuriarum
225:Actio iniuriarum
127:Court membership
68:
66:
33:
21:
1000:
999:
995:
994:
993:
991:
990:
989:
965:
964:
963:
953:
951:
950:. 28 March 2011
942:
941:
934:
924:
922:
913:
912:
908:
882:
881:
877:
841:
840:
836:
826:
824:
810:
809:
805:
787:
786:
782:
746:
745:
741:
707:
706:
699:
663:
662:
658:
648:
646:
637:
636:
632:
622:
620:
611:
610:
606:
596:
594:
585:
584:
580:
570:
568:
559:
558:
554:
550:
533:Mogoeng Mogoeng
502:
448:
392:
360:
355:
301:
260:
110:
64:
62:
17:
12:
11:
5:
998:
996:
988:
987:
982:
977:
967:
966:
962:
961:
932:
920:Daily Maverick
906:
895:(4): 847–864.
875:
834:
803:
780:
739:
697:
656:
645:. 8 March 2011
630:
604:
593:. 11 July 2010
578:
551:
549:
546:
501:
498:
463:Johan Froneman
447:
444:
420:Bennie Griesel
391:
388:
380:cross-appealed
359:
356:
354:
351:
300:
297:
262:
261:
259:
258:
255:
252:
246:
243:
238:
233:
228:
220:
217:
216:
212:
211:
208:
204:
203:
200:
196:
195:
192:
191:Concur/dissent
188:
187:
184:
180:
179:
175:
174:
133:
132:Judges sitting
129:
128:
124:
123:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
82:
78:
77:
74:
70:
69:
59:
55:
54:
49:
48:Full case name
45:
44:
39:
35:
34:
26:
25:
15:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
997:
986:
983:
981:
978:
976:
973:
972:
970:
949:
945:
939:
937:
933:
921:
917:
910:
907:
902:
898:
894:
890:
886:
879:
876:
871:
867:
862:
857:
853:
849:
845:
838:
835:
822:
818:
814:
807:
804:
799:
795:
791:
784:
781:
776:
772:
767:
762:
758:
754:
750:
743:
740:
735:
731:
727:
723:
719:
715:
711:
704:
702:
698:
693:
689:
684:
679:
675:
671:
667:
660:
657:
644:
640:
634:
631:
618:
614:
608:
605:
592:
588:
582:
579:
566:
562:
556:
553:
547:
545:
543:
539:
534:
530:
529:
523:
521:
517:
513:
512:
507:
499:
497:
495:
490:
488:
482:
478:
476:
472:
468:
467:Edwin Cameron
464:
460:
455:
453:
445:
443:
439:
434:
432:
431:
426:
421:
416:
414:
410:
404:
401:
397:
389:
387:
385:
381:
377:
373:
369:
365:
357:
353:Prior actions
352:
350:
348:
344:
343:
338:
335:required for
334:
330:
326:
322:
317:
314:
310:
306:
298:
296:
294:
290:
286:
282:
278:
274:
270:
269:
256:
253:
251:
247:
244:
242:
239:
237:
234:
232:
229:
227:
226:
222:
221:
218:
213:
209:
205:
201:
197:
193:
189:
185:
181:
178:Case opinions
176:
173:
169:
165:
161:
157:
153:
149:
145:
141:
137:
134:
130:
125:
121:
117:
116:North Gauteng
113:
109:
106:
102:
99:
97:Prior actions
95:
90:
86:
83:
79:
75:
71:
60:
56:
53:
50:
46:
43:
40:
36:
32:
27:
24:Le Roux v Dey
22:
19:
952:. Retrieved
947:
923:. Retrieved
919:
909:
892:
888:
878:
851:
847:
837:
825:. Retrieved
823:(3): 407–419
820:
816:
806:
797:
793:
783:
756:
752:
742:
717:
713:
673:
669:
659:
647:. Retrieved
642:
633:
621:. Retrieved
616:
607:
595:. Retrieved
590:
581:
569:. Retrieved
564:
555:
538:Constitution
526:
524:
509:
503:
491:
486:
483:
479:
456:
449:
441:
436:
428:
417:
412:
405:
399:
393:
361:
346:
340:
333:wrongfulness
318:
302:
267:
266:
265:
257:wrongfulness
223:
140:Moseneke DCJ
119:
104:
92:Case history
51:
18:
506:personality
459:Fritz Brand
425:Albie Sachs
396:Louis Harms
384:costs order
325:humiliation
250:personality
245:humiliation
183:Decision by
73:Docket nos.
969:Categories
954:3 February
925:3 February
649:3 February
623:3 February
597:3 February
571:3 February
548:References
542:homosexual
471:Zak Yacoob
438:plaintiff.
366:, and the
358:High Court
339:under the
329:defamation
299:Background
281:defamation
248:injury to
236:defamation
210:Skweyiya J
164:Skweyiya J
160:Nkabinde J
152:Khampepe J
148:Froneman J
65:2011-03-08
901:1996-2177
870:1727-3781
775:2709-555X
734:0258-7203
692:2709-555X
500:Reception
156:Mogoeng J
144:Cameron J
136:Ngcobo CJ
81:Citations
76:CCT 45/10
854:: 1–27.
827:13 April
518:and the
309:Pretoria
295:photo.
215:Keywords
172:Brand AJ
168:Yacoob J
411:on the
321:damages
289:damages
275:in the
207:Dissent
199:Dissent
63: (
58:Decided
899:
868:
800:: 395.
773:
753:Obiter
732:
690:
670:Obiter
643:News24
565:News24
759:(3).
676:(3).
285:minor
283:by a
38:Court
956:2024
927:2024
897:ISSN
866:ISSN
829:2013
771:ISSN
730:ISSN
688:ISSN
651:2024
625:2024
599:2024
573:2024
525:The
465:and
323:for
254:jest
170:and
893:131
856:doi
821:128
798:128
761:doi
722:doi
678:doi
489:.
307:in
971::
946:.
935:^
918:.
891:.
887:.
864:.
852:21
850:.
846:.
819:.
815:.
796:.
792:.
769:.
757:32
755:.
751:.
728:.
718:36
716:.
712:.
700:^
686:.
674:33
672:.
668:.
641:.
615:.
589:.
563:.
166:,
162:,
158:,
154:,
150:,
146:,
142:,
138:,
118:–
114:,
103:–
958:.
929:.
903:.
872:.
858::
831:.
777:.
763::
736:.
724::
694:.
680::
653:.
627:.
601:.
575:.
372:R
67:)
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
