Gugulethu Ntombela vs Daily Sun

BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA

In the matter between:

Gugulethu Ntombela                                                                                                                                                          Applicant

and

Daily Sun                                                                                                                                                                                  Respondent

                                                                                            Matter No: 000541/03/2026

DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL

1. This is an application for leave to appeal by Ms Gugulethu Ntombela (applicant) for leave to appeal a Ruling by the Acting Press Ombud dated 17 April 2026. The Ruling was on a complaint that had been filed by the applicant against Daily Sun (respondent) in respect of its article published on 27 February 2026 under the headline “Cheap Ngobiyoni ‘kills’ Kasi boozers”. The gist of the complaint was that the article incorrectly reported that the applicant sold at her outlet some liquor which caused people to fall ill and die; it was described as a “dangerously cheap alcoholic drink known as ‘ngobiyoni’”. The article said that people claimed that the drink had led to deaths. The gist of the applicant’s complaint was that the article contained untruthful information about her business, and thus in breach of several clauses of the Press Code. She also complained that she was not given the opportunity to respond. The respondent contested the validity of the complaint. It argued that it had gotten the information from people from the area, on which the article was based.
2. In his Ruling, the Acting Press Ombud dismissed the complaint; hence this application. For the application to succeed, it must show reasonable prospects of success on appeal. This is what I should now assess.
3. The Acting Press Ombud identified the main issues in point and dealt with them systematically. Firstly, he found that the article did not mention the applicant’s name or the name of the address. To the question that there was no prior comment by the applicant, he ruled that she was given a reasonable chance to comment in that questions were emailed to her; the fact that she did not regularly check her emails was not the applicant’s problem. Thirdly, as to whether it was true that the outlet sold the drink in question was one of the issues not responded to by the applicant (whereas she should have). Fourthly, as to whether the “owner” of the outlet was a former policewoman, it was obscure because the article several times spoke of “owners”, meaning that there was more than one owner; add to that the fact that the applicant’s name was not mentioned. It could therefore, in my view, not be said that she was specifically or singularly the person referred to. Fifthly, the article fairly reflected the interview with members of the community; the reportage appeared to be above board and thus could not have been sucked from the thumb. Finally, regarding whether the information in the article was verified, every statement was either presented as an allegation or attributed to a source. In her application for leave to appeal, the applicant did not take the matter any further. I find that the Ruling dealt with the matter fully and correctly.
4. In light of the aforegoing, I rule that the applicant has no reasonable prospects of success on appeal; the application therefore fails.

Dated this 22^nd day of June 2026.

Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.