Jarrid Geduld vs Kuier Magazine
BEFORE THE APPEALS PANEL OF THE PRESS COUNCIL OF SOUTH AFRICA
In the matter between:
Jarrid Geduld Applicant
and
Kuier Magazine Respondent
Matter No: 000566/03/2026
DECISION ON AN APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAL
- Mr Jarrid Geduld (applicant) brings an application to appeal the Ruling of the Acting Press Ombud dated 14 May 2026 which dismissed his complaint against Kuier Magazine (respondent). The complaint was against an article published by the respondent on 4 December 2025, although it had been available in stores from 27 November 2025. The article was based on the interview the journalist had had with one Ms Vashti Prins. The complaint was lodged on 31 March 2026.
- During the interview, Ms Prins said that she had been in a relationship with someone who was abusive to her; she gave some details. In his complaint, lodged on his behalf by his lawyers, the applicant said he was clearly identifiable as the person responsible for the abuse and that the allegations were false. He also said that he was not given the opportunity to respond. Together with the complaint, the applicant submitted an application for the condonation of his late filing of the complaint. The explanation he gave for the delayed complaint was that he had been preoccupied with a number of other personal issues in his life, including a relationship with another woman that involved the caring of their child. I need not go into those other aspects of the applicant’s personal life as they have nothing to do with the complaint.
- The respondent not only opposed the application for condonation, but also contested the merits of the complaint. Given the conclusion I reach, it is not necessary to go into the merits. In opposing the application for condonation, the respondent revealed that in fact well before 31 March 2026 when the complaint was lodged, the applicant had engaged Ms Prins about the article through his lawyers. The Public Advocate accepted the complaint. The Acting Ombud, however, refused the condonation, and dismissed the complaint; hence this application, the merits of which I should assess as to whether there is success on appeal.
- I agree with the Ruling of the Acting Press Ombud that there is no adequate explanation for lodging the complaint so long out of time. As the Ruling says, the “complaint was … late by nearly two months.” It has been stated in other matters that the longer the delay, the stronger the explanation must be for the delay. There isn’t such explanation in the present case.
- The application for leave to appeal is therefore dismissed.
Dated this 26th day of June 2026.
Judge B M Ngoepe, Chair, Appeals Panel.
