By Ernst Mabuza

A Property development company yesterday lost its bid to sue four environmental activists for R170m for alleged defamation and damages it said were incurred by their holding up of a Gauteng development .

Judge Stanley Sapire said Wraypex failed on all four claims of defamation and damages it had launched against Rhenosterspruit Nature Conservancy members Arthur Barnes, Mervyn Gaylard, Lise Essberger and Helen Duigan.

Environmental activists regarded this case as a "strategic litigation against public participation" lawsuit.

This is when developers threaten civil litigation against environmental activists and civil society organisations in order to silence critics and burden them with legal costs until they abandon their criticism.

The four welcomed the judgment and said their hope was that it would give courage to other activists by reinforcing the precedent that supported the rights of ordinary people to defend their environment.

The litigation began in 2005 when the four opposed the now completed 330-house estate Blair Atholl, situated in northwestern Gauteng.

In its particulars of claims, Wraypex claimed the four published false and malicious statements that aimed to injure the developer.

Wraypex said the statements made to authorities delayed the necessary statutory approvals and, as a result of the delays, the developer suffered damages including the costs of finance and contractual penalties.

In their defence, the four said they had made the statements that drew the complaints either to government officials designated to receive information about the development, or to other members of the conservancy during the course of discussions about the development and the objection to it. They argued that none of these statements was made to the press.

Wraypex sued Mr Barnes for R40m, Mr Gaylard for R50m, Ms Duigan for R40m and Ms Essberger for R40m.

The four said the amounts were suspicious because Wraypex had described the project as a success.

Ms Duigan said yesterday that the merit of the case and costs were separated and the argument as to the level of costs against Wraypex would take place at a later stage.

She said it was a matter of principle that they had persisted in standing up against intimidation from the developer’s lawyer, who , she said, had threatened them verbally and in writing as soon as they began questioning aspects of the development.

Source: Business Day