The Johannesburg High Court has ruled that there is a dispute of facts in the defamation lawsuit brought before court by ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula against her colleague – NEC member Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who accused him of vote-buying.
Consequently, the court had further ordered that oral hearings where both Mbalula and Dlamini-Zuma must take the stand to be cross-examined will settle the dispute once and for all.
In this regard, the court has set a parameters of what the oral evidence will be limited to for a speedy resolution to the case in which Mbalula had argued that he sufferers harm on a daily basis since Dlamini-Zuma alleged in a Podcast that he was bribing delegates at the ANC Nasrec 2 elective congress four years ago.
READ; Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma gearing up for legal battle against Fikile Mbalula
Acting Judge Henno Viljoen on Friday evening made the order which could be considered a stalemate for now until the determination after the oral evidence that will be led.
Way forward
“Oral evidence is to be heard to determine whether at or in connection with the 55th National Conference of the African National Congress held at Nasrec, Johannesburg, from 16 to 20 December 2022, the applicant distributed money to delegates for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the elections held at that conference?” writes Viljoen.
“If the question in paragraph 3.1 is answered in the [Mbalula’s] favour, the nature and extent of the harm occasioned to the
applicant’s reputation by the publication, and the conduct of [Dlamini-Zuma] since the publication, in so far as those matters bear upon whether an order for the publication of a retraction and an apology should be made.”
The order continues that other than Mbalula and Dlamini-Zuma, the only other witness who will testify in oral evidence is ANC member Mandla Themba Sibiya.
Any other witness that Mbalula or Dlamini-Zuma wish to call must be approved by the court and must be relevant to the one central question for determination as set out in the order.
READ; Dlamini-Zuma alleges Mbalula bought votes at ANC conference
“An application for such leave must be made on notice to the other party and must be accompanied by an affidavit by the proposed witness setting out his or her evidence in sufficient detail to allow an assessment of the justification for calling that witness.
“The application must be delivered not less than fifteen court days before the date fixed for the hearing of oral
evidence or within such shorter period as the Court may allow.”
Dispute of facts established
Viljoen write that he arrived at this order that drags the matter further on because he genuinely believes that the dispute of facts that exists lies within a very narrow compass and does not depend upon the construction of documents and expert evidence.
As far as he is concerned, the true fact can easily be ascertained hence the hearing of oral evidence is the appropriate
course.
“The witnesses are ascertainable: there are, on the papers as they stand, three, namely [Mbalula], [Dlamini-Zuma] and Mr
Sibiya. This is not a case in which the issues are too undefined and the witnesses too unascertainable for a simple hearing of oral evidence,” writes Viljoen.
“A speedy determination is desirable. Mbalula says that the allegation continues to injure him daily; Dlamini-Zuma says that she stands by what she said and is willing to have it ventilated in court.
“Costs should stand over. The question of who has been substantially successful cannot be answered until the issues referred to oral evidence have been decided.”
- The Johannesburg High Court has ruled that there is a dispute of facts in the defamation lawsuit brought before court by ANC secretary-general Fikile Mbalula against her colleague – NEC member Dr Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma who accused him of vote-buying.
- Consequently, the court had further ordered that oral hearings where both Mbalula and Dlamini-Zuma must take the stand to be cross-examined will settle the dispute once and for all.
- In this regard, the court has set a parameters of what the oral evidence will be limited to for a speedy resolution to the case in which Mbalula had argued that he sufferers harm on a daily basis since Dlamini-Zuma alleged in a Podcast that he was bribing delegates at the ANC Nasrec 2 elective congress four years ago.
- READ; Nkosazana Dlamini-Zuma gearing up for legal battle against Fikile Mbalula Acting Judge Henno Viljoen on Friday evening made the order which could be considered a stalemate for now until the determination after the oral evidence that will be led.
- Way forward “Oral evidence is to be heard to determine whether at or in connection with the 55th National Conference of the African National Congress held at Nasrec, Johannesburg, from 16 to 20 December 2022, the applicant distributed money to delegates for the purpose of influencing the outcome of the elections held at that conference?” writes Viljoen.
