<p>Supreme Court of Appeal of South Africa MEDIA SUMMARY From: The Registrar, Supreme Court of Appeal Date: Wednesday, 2 December 2004 Status: Immediate</p><p>Times Media Ltd and 4 Others v Niselow and Another</p><p>On 1 December 2004 the Supreme Court of Appeal – by a majority – upheld an appeal by Times Media Limited and four other appellants against a judgment of the Johannesburg High Court which had held that the appellants were liable to pay damages to the respondents for defamation. On 29 September 1998 an article appeared in the Sunday Times newspaper under the heading: ‘Cook that Spoiled Games Broth’, the first paragraph of which alleged that the man who had served up a meal that poisoned 600 children at the opening of the All Africa Games on the Friday was still catering at the event. The article alleged further that the first appellant (Mr Barry Niselow) had said that he would continue to dish up the beef stew which was suspected of poisoning the children at the games. The article also described the food served to the children as smelling ‘awful’ and looking ‘appalling’.</p><p>The Supreme Court of Appeal found that the article was defamatory of the respondents in at least two respects: (a) by alleging that the beef stew was suspected of having poisoned the children and (b) by alleging that the food smelled awful and looked appalling. 2</p><p>However, the majority of the court held that the respondents had relied on stings or quasi-innuendos to which they were limited; they had not pleaded (a) above and therefore could not rely on it. They had pleaded that the article meant that the beef stew was responsible for the food-poisoning. As so (b) the majority of the court held that the allegations were substantially true and published in the public interest. In this regard the court referred to the evidence of Dr Boden who had attended on the children after they had become sick from food-poisoning. He had described the food as ‘a pretty glutinous mess and a brown mixture associated with that’ and that it did not look ‘wholesome’ and appetising and ‘certainly smelt sour’. The respondent’s claims were therefore dismissed with costs.</p><p>The minority held that the appellants had not succeeded in justifying the defamatory statements. --- end ---</p>