Appeal Decision: Nova Property Holdings and Moneyweb 7792

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Irba reports Nova to Sars and CIPC – Sharemax rescue vehicle to be investigated for possible transgressions of tax legislation and the Companies Act (published on 24 February 2020). The complaint was also about Comments by readers on Moneyweb’s platform.

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 article said the Independent Regulatory Board of Auditors referred a Reportable Irregularity (RI) to the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission and SARS regarding Nova (a group of companies trading in property investment and property development) for investigation. The mere referral to CIPC and SARS “suggests possible transgressions of the Companies Act and tax legislation”, the story said. Comments on Moneyweb’s platform, mainly directed at Nova and its directors, included one director who was called “lower than pond scum”, stating that his dog would not even lift his leg on him; and that Nova had no remorse for all the pain and suffering inflicted on thousands of elderly people.

The gist of Nova’s complaint was that the article falsely and maliciously stated that it was “…to be investigated for possible transgressions of tax legislation and the Companies Act”. The Ombud upheld the complaint about this statement, as it presented an allegation as a fact.  Moneyweb was directed to apologise to Myburgh and to Nova for this breach of the Press Code. The rest of the complaint was dismissed. This included the complaints about the “Comments” on Moneyweb’s platform. The Ombud said he had no reason to believe that the reportage had unnecessarily tarnished the dignity and reputation of either Myburgh or Nova – upon which the complainants applied for leave to appeal.

Judge Ngoepe said there was nothing new in this complaint as compared to those he had already dealt with (there were five other related complaints).

He dismissed this application for leave to appeal.

THE RULING ITSELF

BEFORE THE APPEL PANEL OF THE SOUTH AFRICAN PRESS COUNCIL

In the matter between

NOVA PROPERTY HOLDINGS LIMITED                                                       APPLICANT

AND

1. This is one of a series of applications for leave to launched by Nova Property Group (“applicant”) in a matter between the applicant and Moneyweb (“the respondent”). The dates of publication in some complaints are common, so too the headlines.
2. For a good measure, I restate the Ombud’s summary of the complaints in his Ruling of 21 August 2020: “The gist of Nova’s complaint is that the sub-headline and the article falsely and maliciously stated that:

• it was ‘… to be investigated for possible transgressions of tax legislation and the Companies Act’ (sub-headline);
• the Independent Regulatory Board for Auditors (Irba) ‘has referred a reportable irregularity (RI), filed by the company’s auditor Nexia SAB&T related to Nova last year, to the South African Revenue Service (Sars) and the Companies and Intellectual Property Commission (CIPC) for investigation’ (article); and
• the RI might point to fraud or amount to theft, ‘or represent a material breach on any fiduciary duty’.”

3. Then there are other complaints: an innuendo that Nova might have contravened the provisions of the Companies Act and tax regulations. There is a complaint that respondent provided a platform for the public that was used to say irrelevant things, to express hate speech, aggressive, insults, venom etc against applicant and individuals. The office of the Press Ombud is then asked to ensure that respondent does not use that platform.
4. The reason I restated the Ombud’s summary of the complaints, and added other in  paragraph 3 above, is to demonstrate that there is nothing new in this complaint as compared to those I have already dealt with; such as complaints 7828, 7829 and 7830; at least some of them; particularly between 7792 and 7795. The grounds of appeal are also substantially similar; e.g. that the Ombud could have been influenced by his unhappiness with the language use. It should be noted that all these matters are between the same parties. I therefore need not keep on repeating myself; I do not have the resources and luxury of time to keep that. I therefore refer the parties to my Decisions in the above matters.
5. It is clear that Mr Myburgh wants to use the process enshrined in the Press Code to restrain Moneyweb from writing unfavourable things about Nova, including especially about himself. In this respect, I refer to paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 in my Decision in matter 7795.
6. It is therefore my view that the application has no prospects of success, and it is therefore turned down.

Dated this 13^th day of October 2020

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel