A group of community activists have accused the developers of a golf estate in the Rhenosterspruit conservation area, who slapped them with a R50-million defamation claim  of being “belligerent bullies”.

Advocate Rudolph Jansen, appearing for Vlakfontein residents Mervyn Gaylard, Lise Essberger, Arthur Barnes and Hellen Duigan, argued that the history of the defamation claim by property developers Wraypex (Pty) Ltd did not represent a genuinely aggrieved plaintiff seeking redress.

“To the contrary, the background shows the belligerence, bullying tactics and complete lack of decorum on the part of the plaintiff, ably assisted by an attorney who displayed the same characteristics,” he argued in the North Gauteng High Court at the  weekend.

Away, which developed the Blair Atholl golf estate in the Rhenosterspruit conservation area, accused the four residents of delaying the development, harming the company’s reputation and violating its constitutional rights with their “false and malicious” statements and objections. Statements in which the residents among  others expressed concern that the developers were not complying with due process and associated legal requirements, were made to members of the Rhenosterspruit Nature Conservancy, the Tshwane town planner and Gauteng Agriculture and Conservation MEC.

Wraypex also accused Barnes of telling one of its contractors that Wraypex CEO Ronald Wray “had committed fraud and paid a bribe” – claims Barnes denied.

Counsel for Wraypex, Etienne Theron, argued that none of the defendants had made any serious attempt to prove that their “reckless statements” were true or reasonable.

“Lying is not constitutionally protected. Your freedom of speech does not go that far,” he said.

He argued that the defendants had “studiously put their heads in the sand” and never bothered to establish the true facts and requirements for the development.
Heron argued that it was clear that the defendants had attempted to stop or delay the development “with every fibre of their beings” and were prepared to do so by any means possible. Jansen argued that Wraypex had not proved that any of the complaints – which were made while participating in a public process – had been made with the intent to injure.

He said the defendants’ interest had been selfness, being to contribute to environmental protection in the common good, their modus operandi had been peaceful and to granted the relief sought by Wraypex would have a chilling effect on the readiness of persons like them to step forward as active citizens.

Judge L Sapire reserved judgment.