IN THE HIGH COURT OF SOUTH AFRICA (WESTERN CAPE HIGH COURT, CAPE TOWN)

CASE NO: 15600/2007

In the matter between:

JUDGMENT : 2 JUNE 2010

TRAVERSO, DJP:

"PROKUREUR WOU NIGGIE 'INRUIL'
'n Prokureur wat tans in die hooggeregshof in Kaapstad teregstaan op aanklagte van bedrog, het probeer om die saak buite die hof te skik.
Hy en die klaers se regspan het Woensdagoggend tot 03:00 die oggend nog probeer skik, maar op die ou end is besluit om nie die skikking te aanvaar nie.
Die bedrogbedrag is R22 miljoen.
Die saak het sy ontstaan reeds in 1998 toe prokureur Natheem Albertus vir Ekloba Fishing opgetree het in 'n kwota-saak. Albertus is na bewering betaal vir die werk, maar hy het dit glo nooit gedoen nie.
Ekloba het gevra dat die leers (van die werk) voorgele word vir taksering. Ekloba het toe beweer Albertus was oneerlik en opportunisms, en dat die leers nooit voorgele was vir taksering nie.
In 'n skrywe gerig aan die wetsgenootskap op 13 November 2002 is Albertus van Albertus-prokureurs versoek om alle dokumentasie aan Ekloba Fishing Closed Corporation aan mnr. Walter Phillips jr. te oorhandig. Dit was aangesien prokureur Albertus se dienste lankal beeindig is en Ekloba horn niks skuld nie.
Albertus het toe nog volgehou dat hy wel die werk gedoen het. Toe hy gevra is of die rekening getakseer was, het hy geantwoord dat die klient dit moet aanvra.
Daar is gevra dat die leers nie later as 12:00 op 15 November 2002 aan die Wetgenootskap oorhandig moet word nie.
Daar was egter 'n gesloer, en dit het adv. Theo Swartz genoop om 'n klag van bedrog te gaan le.
Van die beweringe teen Albertus is dat hy uit die staansppor daarop aangedring het om 'n persoonlike ledebelang in Ekloba Fishing te kry, wat hulle geweier het. Hy het daarna aangehou om 'n ledebelang te kry deur aan Ekloba te se dat hy sy niggie Hawa Kagee, as 'n beslote korporasie sou insluit.
Hy sou in mil daarvoor gratis regsdienste aan Ekloba aanbied, beweer Ekloba Fishing. Albertus het in 1998 Ekloba Fishing gaan herregistreer en sy niggie se naam by die bestaande ledetal gaan voeg. Ekloba se lede was baie ontsteld, want dit het beteken hul ledebelang sou verminder word.
En toe gebruik Albertus na bewering vir Hawa as sy benoemde, en hy wat Albertus is, ontvang toe na bewering alle finansiele voordele.
Albertus het toe blykbaar vir F. Karitses and Company as Ekloba se rekeningkundige beampte laat vervang. Hy het horn vervang met sy neef M. Sedick van Sedick en Vennote, wat as hy die nuwe rekeningkundige beampte geregistreer het.
Na bewering kom dit daarop neer dat Albertus beplan het om Ekloba Fishing oor te neem, luidens hofstukke en saaknommer 6857/02.
Luidens 'n brief aan die wetsgenootskap, het Albertus glo hoog oneties opgetree deur sy magsposisie as prokureur te gebruik om sodoende voorheen benadeelde vissersmanne te manipuleer en onbehoorlik te beinvloed sodat hy in die persoon van sy niggie -Hawee Kajee - 'n ledebelang in Ekloba Fishing kon verkry.
Daar word beweer dat Albertus voorgegee het dat hy 'n boot gekoop het, wat nooit gedoen is nie. Hy het met die verkoper 'n kontrak opgestel om te se daar is 'n boot gekoop.
•
Albertus skryf in 'n skrywe gedateer 7 Mei 2003 dat Phillips die leers 'n tyd gelede kom afhaal het. Phillips het gese dit is 'n infame leuen.
Albertus se in die skrywe van 7 Mei 2003 dat Phillips die dokumente moes vernietig het. Phillips ontken dit
•
(I have not highlighted the many spelling and linguistic mistakes.)

(a)	the plaintiff, as an attorney, was standing trial in the High Court of Cape Town on charges of fraud amounting to R22m;
(b)	the plaintiff, as an attorney, received payment of fees for professional work which he did not perform;
(c)	the plaintiff was dishonest and opportunistic and failed to have fees taxed when he was required to do so;
(d)	the plaintiff coerced members of the Ukloba Fishing Close Corporation, in exchange for gratuitous legal services to make his niece, Hawa Kajee a member of the close corporation;
(e)	the plaintiff behaved unethically by using his position of power to manipulate previously disadvantaged fisherman in a manner that enabled his niece to obtain member's interest in Ukloba Fishing Close Corporation;
(f)	the plaintiff falsely drew up a contract which reflected that he had bought a boat when in fact he had not done so.

"We record that your Mr Prins wanted the writer's version of Ukloba Fishing before his prints an article in "Die Kaapse Son". As indicated to your Mr. Prins, it was difficult for me to give him my version of Ukloba Fishing, if I do not know exactly what he is referring to and exactly what the allegations are.

However, I insist that I be given a copy of any article you propose to publish in advance of it going to print, to ensure that it reflects accurately the true facts and that it does not infringe on my constitutional rights. The article must be fair and accurate in all its detail and must under no circumstances seek to influence the case, as it is still pending.

9. In the circumstances, you are advised, that it would be extremely unwise for you to allow your newspaper to be used by the respondents to achieve their diabolical purpose by repeating the defamatory allegations made by the respondents. In this regard we advise further that the High Court on 22 August 2003 granted our clients' application for an order striking out certain allegations contained in Walter Phillips's   affidavit   as    being   scandalous,    vexatious, argumentative or irrelevant with costs including those of two counsel."

This letter was sent to the defendants on 12 September 2003 - more than a year before the article was published.

There was nothing to indicate that it was anything other than an accurate account of what had taken place in Court. That is how any reasonable reader would have read it.

The defendants are ordered to pay the plaintiff, jointly and severally, the one paying the other to be absolved:
(a) the sum of R150 000,00 (one hundred and fifty thousand rand);
(b) costs of suit.

TREVERSO, DJP