Appeal Decision: Mbuli Sisa vs Sunday Sun
SUMMARY
The headline to the story in dispute read, Uyanda’s gatvol with Sisa drama (published on 13 March 2016).
This ruling by the Chair of the Appeals Panel Judge Bernard Ngoepe was based on the Press Code that was in effect before 30 September 2022.
The story referred to an article in the Sowetan of 9 March 2016 on an interdict Sisa Mbuli had obtained to stop an “ill-fated” auction of the common home by his ex-wife, Uyanda Mbuli – and that he had written to his ex-wife’s attorneys demanding an outstanding balance of R8 000 per month.
Sisa Mbuli inter alia complained that:
- the article fabricated allegations, and then stated them as fact;
- the headline was factually incorrect;
- his personal life was not in the public interest; and
- the newspaper’s modus operandi was questionable, alternatively it bordered on malice by neglecting to verify its information.
The Ombud dismissed the complaint, inter alia because:
- it was the newspaper’s right to have thought that the saga was dramatic;
- the saga was indeed continuing;
- some statements Mbuli called false were duly attributed to a source;
- Mbuli’s wife was a celebrity;
- he had not been presented with any evidence that the media had been prohibited from identifying the parties; and
- the headline, which made use of a direct quote by Ms Mbuli, was justified.
Judge Ngoepe said he agreed with the Ombud’s ruling “and I need not repeat as I have nothing further to add”. The application for leave to appeal was dismissed.
THE RULING ITSELF
IN THE MATTER OF:
MBULI SISA APPLICANT
VS
SUNDAY SUN RESPONDENT MATTER NO: 1646/03/2016
DECISION: APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
[1] Mr Sisa Mbuli (“applicant”) seeks leave to appeal the Ombud’s Ruling of 16 May 2016. The Ruling was on applicant’s complaint against Sunday Sun (“respondent’) in the wake of a story published by respondent on 13 March 2016, with the headline “Uyanda’s gatvol with Sisa drama”. The applicant and Uyanda were married, but got divorced.
[2] The story was about an ongoing dispute between the applicant and Uyanda. There was a lot of squabbling about the issue of arrear maintenance, which the one wanted to offset against the other. But what also irked the applicant was that it was alleged that that he was enjoying the full use of the couple’s former house alone, whereas Uyanda was in fact still keeping her items in it; in fact in a locked room. There was apparently a court order in terms of which the parties were not to comment about their divorce, according to applicant; also, the respondent reported on old issues between the couple as if they were recent. The applicant’s complaints, as summed up in the Ruling, were that:
“? the article fabricated allegations, and then stated them as fact …
? the headline was factually incorrect, …”
Furthermore, that his right of privacy and dignity were infringed as his life was not of public interest; the publication of the story constituted contempt of court; the respondent’s modus operandi was questionable or malicious in not verifying information. All these were his complaints.
[3] In its response, respondent said that the couple were a celebrity couple which had been in the lime light for years; reference was made to several previous stories in the media. It was also denied that the respondent was in contempt of court. It stated that two reliable sources were used. The headline was Uyanda’s words to the journalist; and that the conflict was indeed still ongoing. Respondent therefore “believed the article to be reasonably true and in the public interest, and therefore decided to publish.”
[4] For the applicant to succeed in his application, he must show reasonable prospects before the Appeals Panel. The Ombud has dealt in detail with each complaint, as well as respondent’s reply. He has set out his reasons fully for dismissing the complaint in its entirely. I agree with him and need not repeat as I have nothing further to add. The headline was in inverted commas indicating that it was Uyanda’s words. In my view, the applicant and Uyanda were indeed in the lime light for years and they were a celebrity couple. This is the context in which the matter should be considered. The application is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 20th day of June 2016
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel
