Appeal Decision: Accommodation Option Event CC vs Sunday World

SUMMARY

The headline to the story in dispute read, Parastatal’s top-brass face tender, donations rap (published on 13 May 2018).

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 said that two high-ranking Centre for Public Service Innovation (CPSI) officials, as well as a service provider, allegedly had “hijacked” an event management tender from a company recommended by a bid adjudication and evaluation committee in favour of their preferred service provider, Accommodation Options Events (AOE). The journalist reported that, according to CIPC documents, AOE was co-owned by Sandra Anne Linley, and that it had been providing services to CPSI for six years.

AOE and Linley complained the story had tarnished their dignity and reputation because it falsely stated that:

• CIPC documents showed the company was owned by Linley (and others), without properly verifying this dubious information;
• they had provided services for the CPSI for six years; and
• the latter had said she could not comment, while she did not have sufficient time to do so.

The Ombud directed Sunday World to apologise to Linley for incorrectly stating as fact that she had owned AOE at the time of publication, and to publish the correct information in this regard. The rest of the complaint was dismissed.

The newspaper published the apology, upon which Liney applied for leave to appeal as the sanction had been “too lenient”.

Judge Ngoepe dismissed the application because:

• it had been filed out of time; and
• he agreed with the Ombud’s ruling.

THE RULING ITSELF

In the matter between:

ACCOMMODATION OPTION EVENT CC                                                     APPLICANT

AND

1.         Accommodation Option Event CC (“applicant”) had lodged a complaint against Sunday World (“respondent”).  The Press Ombud ruled in favour of the applicant and ordered the respondent to publish an apology.  The Ombud’s Ruling was issued on 17 July 2018.

2.         By the time the period within which the applicant or any of the parties was entitled to file an application for leave to appeal lapsed, none had done so.  The office of the Ombud having confirmed that, the respondent went ahead and published the apology on 29 July 2018.  The applicant is of the view that the sanction imposed is too lenient and now wants leave to appeal against it.

3.         The applicant has changed attorneys.  The new firm says they received instructions only on 31 July 2018, and they could not file the application for leave to appeal timeously.

4.         I am of the view that the condonation or, as the applicant puts it, the extension, cannot be granted.  Firstly, the sanction has already been published; it was published on 29 July 2018, even before the request for the extension was submitted. We cannot unscramble the omelette at this stage. Secondly, the request does not establish prospects of success before the Appeals Panel; in the absence of such prospects, the granting of leave to appeal would be academic.

5.         For the reasons given above, as well as those furnished by the Ombud, the application is declined.

Dated this 12^th day of September 2018

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel