Menu
Ruling (Ombuds)

Rema Tip Top Africa (Pty) Ltd v Moneyweb, The Citizen and The Witness

, ,

Ruling: Acting Press Ombud

Complaint number: PCSA 000652 / 000666

Author: Cairan Ryan

Headlines: “Dunlop Industrial accused of withholding payment over ‘False Allegations’ of collusion” (Moneyweb, The Citizen);

: “Dunlop accuses brothers of collusion in dispute” (The Citizen); and

: “Dunlop Industrial accused of withholding payment over allegations of collusion” (The Witness).

Publication Dates: The Moneyweb article was published on 15 May 2026; the articles in The Citizen and The Witness were published on May 18.

Dates lodged: 25 May 2026 and 10 June 2026

Link to story: https://www.citizen.co.za/business/dunlop-industrial-accused-of-withholdingpayment-over-false-allegations-of-collusion

Particulars

  1. This complaint was submitted by Lesego Makofane, an attorney at Jurgens Bekker Attorneys Inc, on behalf of its client, Rema Tip Top Africa (PTY) Ltd, previously known as Dunlop International (henceforth: “Rema”). He submitted two separate complaints – first against Moneyweb, and then also against The Citizen and The Witness (henceforth: “Moneyweb”).
  2. Under the guidance of the Public Advocate, it was agreed that the complaints were combined and, as it originated at Moneyweb, the latter would respond to them.
  3. The articles were published both in print and online and were alleged to have been in breach of Clauses 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.7 and 1.8 of the Press Code.

The articles

  1. The article, headlined “Dunlop Industrial accused of withholding payment over ‘False Allegations’ of collusion”, is about two brothers, Marlen and Megan Naidu, who were accused of colluding to win business – claims which were denied and were about to be tested in the KZN High Court.
  2. Marlen was a director of Premier Electrical and Automation, which had been a supplier to Rema for years; Megan was previously employed by Dunlop as a reliability engineer.
  3. The problem reportedly started by late 2025, when Dunlop stopped paying within the usual 30-day period after receipt of an invoice. The unpaid invoices eventually accumulated to R11.5 million. “That’s when Premier decided to take the matter to court.”
  4. Rema is defending the matter, arguing that Marlen had been colluding with Megan “to gain confidential access to competitor information and swing business his brother’s way”. This accusation was strongly denied by the brothers.
  5. Rema reportedly says it was not aware of the relationship between Marlen and Megan and that the latter was instrumental in arranging Premier as a supplier of goods and services.
  6. The second and third articles, headlined “Dunlop accuses brothers of collusion in dispute” and “Dunlop Industrial accused of withholding payment over allegations of collusion” respectively, are about the same issue.

Disclaimer

  1. I am acutely aware of the fact that a court case about the issues reported in the articles is underway.
  2. The principle is that this office should not adjudicate on the merits of issues that are before a court – there should be no such parallel process. The moment I consider statements regarding a court case to be accurate or inaccurate, I am crossing a red line. I point this out, as Rema does complain of inaccurate information (see Point 15b below).
  3. Therefore, I am going to concentrate on matters of pure journalistic interest, such as not having been asked for comment, the reporting of allegations as facts, public interest and dignity and reputation.
  4. If I am going to err in this process, it will be on the side of caution. This includes correspondence about an alleged credit agreement between Rema and Premier – that is for the court to decide. It also concerns all arguments of a legal nature.

Modus operandi

  1. The complaint is presented in bold, Moneyweb’s replies are in italics, and Rema’s rejoinder, where applicable, is in blocks.

The arguments

15. This complaint is threefold:

a. Rema was not afforded a right of reply;

The articles contained inaccurate information; and

The reportage was not in the public interest and has unnecessarily damaged Rema’s dignity and reputation.

 

  1. Right of reply
  1. I am documenting the arguments regarding this matter from both sides for the sake of completeness, and not because they will have any influence on my decision. See the reason for this under Points 65 and 66 below.
  2. In this process I shall confine myself to the main arguments and omit the lesser ones.
  1. Rema complains that it was not afforded a right of reply prior to publication. The journalist’s allegation that he did contact the company is denied. Neither Rema nor its legal representatives have any record of correspondence or communication to this effect. 
  2. Van Niekerk replies that the journalist sent questions to Ms Joanne de Freitas at SRI Group, who referred him to Dunlop Industrial. He then called the telephone number listed on the company’s website and was instructed by a company representative to send the enquiry to marketing@rematiptop.co.za. He did so, and the email did not bounce.
  3. The Citizen and The Witness online articles expressly stated that Ryan had approached Rema for comment but had not received a reply by the time of publication.
 

21.  The journalist did not contact Rema itself. Moneyweb’s assertion that correspondence was directed to marketing@rematiptop.co.za and that the email “did not bounce” is not sufficient.

22.  The test under the Press Code is not whether an email server accepted a message. The test is whether reasonable steps were taken to obtain meaningful comment from the subject of critical reporting.

23.  A telephonic instruction from an unidentified representative of Rema to route an enquiry to a generic marketing mailbox is not equivalent to obtaining comment from a person authorised to address litigation or reputational matters on the complainant’s behalf.

24.  Moneyweb contacted Premier’s attorneys of record directly for comment, yet did not extend the same approach to Rema, whose attorneys’ details appear on the same pleadings they rely on as their source documents for purposes of preparing the articles.
  1. Rema says the respondents were in possession of its pleadings filed on record, which contain the details of its legal representatives. The journalist communicated with Premier’s attorneys of record, who were contacted for comment and allegedly referred him to its attorneys of record.
  2. Moneyweb indeed had access to Rema’s plea, which included the details of its attorneys of record. However, it is denied that the presence of those details required the journalist to direct a media enquiry to the company’s litigation attorneys. The attorneys’ details appeared in the court papers because they represented the company in the litigation, not because they were identified as Rema Tip Top’s media representatives.
  3. Moreover, the journalist had already approached the company directly via its publicly listed telephone number and followed the instructions provided by the representative who answered the call. The fact that he also approached Premier’s representatives did not require him to use the same communication route for each party.

 

  1. An internal audit by Rema’s IT department confirmed that the person(s) monitoring the email address marketing@rematiptop.co.za did not receive any email correspondence from the journalist (ciaranaryan@gmail.com) prior to publication.
  2. Moneyweb says it cannot verify Rema’s alleged internal audit, its scope, or the systems and mailboxes examined – its own records show that the questions were sent to marketing@rematiptop.co.za, the address provided by a company representative, and that the email did not bounce.

A. Factual inaccuracies

30. Rema says the article contains various factual inaccuracies. First example: “…Marlen was colluding with his brother Megan, then employed as a reliability engineer at Dunlop, to gain confidential access to competitor information and swing business his brother’s way – which is strongly denied by the Naidu brothers. Megan was subsequently dismissed by Dunlop.”

31. Van Niekerk points out that the article reads, “Dunlop Industrial, since renamed Rema Tip Top, is defending the matter, arguing that Marlen was colluding with his brother Megan, then employed as a reliability engineer at Dunlop, to gain confidential access to competitor information and swing business his brother’s way – which is strongly denied by the Naidu brothers. Megan was subsequently dismissed by Dunlop.” (My underlining, referring to words that Rema omitted). Those words expressly attribute the allegation to Dunlop and identify it as the defence advanced by the company in the litigation.

32. Also, the passage appeared under the heading “Allegations” and expressly recorded that the allegation was “strongly denied by the Naidu brothers”. The sentence did not state as fact that the brothers had colluded – it accurately reported the allegation contained in Dunlop’s plea, identified Dunlop as its source, and immediately recorded the opposing denial.

33. Read fairly and as a whole, the article consistently distinguished between the respective pleaded versions of Rema and Premier, identified the source of the disputed allegations, recorded the material denials, and made clear that the issues remained unresolved and would have to be determined at trial.

34. Second example: “…saying Megan was remote from the decision-making process and there had never been any accusations of collusion in the prior years. Nor was the relationship a secret: disclosing it was not a requirement of his employment contract. Premier claims these accusations only surfaced as an after-thought when Dunlop was slapped with a court suit demanding payment.”

35. The editor quotes the article as follows: “Premier’s legal team refutes this version, saying Megan was remote from the decision-making process and there had never been any accusations of collusion in the prior years. Nor was the relationship a secret: disclosing it was not a requirement of his employment contract. Premier claims these accusations only surfaced as an afterthought when Dunlop was slapped with a court suit demanding payment.” (My underlining – again, words omitted by Rema.)

36. The selective quotation creates the misleading impression that the journalist stated as fact that Megan Naidu was remote from the decision-making process, that the relationship was not secret, and that the collusion allegations arose only after legal proceedings were instituted. The article reported both sides of the dispute and did not purport to determine which version was correct.

  1. Third example: “Dunlop goes on to claim that Megan supplied his brother with technical drawings and confidential information from competitors that would presumably assist in winning business – though there is no evidence of this in the court papers”. The allegation of collusion remains unanswered on papers, and will have to now go to trial in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court.”

38. While Rema does quote correctly from the article, the allegation that it presented the alleged conduct as an established fact is incorrect. The sentence expressly begins with the words “Dunlop goes on to claim”, which clearly identify Dunlop as the source of the allegation and distinguish the allegation from a factual finding by the journalist.

39.  It is noteworthy that Moneyweb does not provide any explanation for its decision to use the words “…though there is no evidence of this in the court papers” in the article. The use of those words creates the impression that Moneyweb lacks proof to substantiate its allegations.

40.  At the time the article was published, the proceedings reported on were still at the pleadings stage, and no discovery had yet been exchanged. The articles published were premature.

41. Fourth example: The subheading, ‘Court application’, is fundamentally flawed and legally untenable, given that no motion proceedings are pending in this matter. The litigation in question consists strictly of action proceedings, and the journalist’s conflation of the two demonstrates a profound ignorance on the part of Moneyweb, failing to maintain the critical, elementary distinction between action and motion proceedings to the detriment of factual reportage.

42. Van Niekerk accepts that this was an incorrect legal term, as the proceedings were instituted by summons and constitute action proceedings rather than application proceedings. The more accurate wording would have been “Court action” or “Legal action”. However, this was a minor terminological error confined to a subheading and did not misrepresent the substance or status of the dispute. The article elsewhere made clear that the matter would proceed to trial in the KwaZulu-Natal High Court.

43.  The admitted error further supports Rema’s concern regarding the accuracy and care with which the publications were prepared.

44. Fifth example: “… and denies it entered into any credit or other agreements with premier”.

45. The editor says the actual wording in the article is: “In Dunlop’s response, it says it … denies it entered into any credit or other agreements with Premier.” (My underlining – words not mentioned in Rema’s complaint). Those words expressly attribute the denial to Dunlop and make clear that the article was reporting the position advanced by the company in its plea, rather than making an independent factual finding.

46. The statement also accurately reflects Dunlop’s pleaded case. The plea refers to the alleged credit facility agreements as “denied” and to the alleged further agreements as “similarly denied”. The article therefore correctly reported Dunlop’s denial that it had entered into the agreements alleged by Premier. The truncated quotation creates the misleading impression that the journalist independently asserted that no agreements existed, when the complete sentence makes clear that he was reporting Dunlop’s pleaded position.

47. Last example: “Moneyweb reached out to Dunlop (now Rema Tip Top) for comment but did not receive a reply at the time of publication”.

48. Van Niekerk says the journalist made documented efforts to obtain comment from Rema before publication, as previously argued.

49. Rema submits that, against this backdrop, the article conveys the false and defamatory impression that it had acted in bad faith to evade its legitimate financial obligations.

50. Van Niekerk disagrees – the article did not convey that Rema had acted in bad faith, had sought to evade legitimate financial obligations, or had fabricated allegations of collusion as a retaliatory tactic. Rema attributes conclusions to the article that it did not make. By relying on selective, truncated quotations that omit key words of attribution, the complainant misrepresents the article as endorsing allegations it merely reported as the parties’ competing pleaded versions.

51. Rema: Contrary to what is implied in the reportage, Megan Naidu’s dismissal was entirely unrelated to the present proceedings and arose from a separate and distinct matter.

52. The editor says the article only stated that “Megan was subsequently dismissed by Dunlop” – a statement that was factually accurate. The article did not state that he was dismissed because of the alleged collusion, that the dismissal arose from the present litigation, or that it constituted proof of wrongdoing. The fact that the dismissal may have arisen from a separate matter does not render the limited factual statement published in the article inaccurate.

53. However, Moneyweb nevertheless offered, in its letter dated 15 May 2026, to publish further clarification concerning the circumstances of Megan Naidu’s dismissal if Rema Tip Top wished to place those circumstances on record. The company did not accept that offer or provide the proposed clarification for publication.

54. Rema says the article created the impression that at all material times during Megan’s employment, the company was fully aware of the relationship between Megan and Marlen Naidu, and yet it elected to ignore it entirely. It was only after invoices were rendered that this relationship was relied upon as a basis for objection.

  1. Moneyweb: The article did not create the impression that Rema knew throughout Megan Naidu’s employment that he was Marlen Naidu’s brother and simply ignored the relationship until invoices were rendered. It expressly reported the opposite. The article stated that “Dunlop claims it was not aware of this relationship between the two brothers” and that, had it known of the relationship, it would not have entered into the agreements. This accurately reflected Rema’s pleaded version.

56. The article did not state or imply that Rema sought to mislead the court or advance illegitimate allegations in its plea. It only stated that, although the company had alleged that Megan Naidu had supplied his brother with technical drawings and confidential information from competitors, “there is no evidence of this in the court papers” – which was an accurate description of the court papers available to the journalist at the time of publication. The plea contained the allegation, but it did not attach or identify documentary evidence establishing that the alleged information had been supplied.

57. Rema: The article headlined, “Dunlop accuses brothers of collusion in dispute”, does not state that comments were sought from Rema, which confirms that Moneyweb made no legitimate attempts to obtain its comment.

58. Moneyweb: This omission was an oversight and was not intended to suggest that Rema had not been approached. The Citizen apologises for the omission and proposes the following correction to be published in the newspaper – “Correction: In the article titled ‘Dunlop accuses brothers of collusion in dispute’, published on 18 May 2026, The Citizen failed to note that Rema Tip Top had been approached for comment before publication but had not responded by the publication deadline. The omission occurred during the editing process. The Citizen apologises for the oversight.”

C. Public interest; damage to reputation

  1. Rema: Just because something is interesting, does not necessarily mean it is in the public interest as well – which, in this case, it is not.

60. Moneyweb: The article concerned pending High Court litigation involving an alleged unpaid sum of approximately R11.5 million, disputed commercial agreements, allegations of collusion, the alleged sharing of confidential competitor information, and alleged breaches of procurement procedures. Reporting on substantial commercial litigation and allegations concerning procurement, confidential information, and non-payment was a legitimate exercise of the media’s role in covering matters before the courts.

61.  The matter concerns a private commercial dispute between two corporate entities. The mere existence of court proceedings does not automatically transform a private commercial dispute into a matter of public interest. Reporting on this matter is not in the public interest, particularly given that the litigation is still at an early stage. Accordingly, Moneyweb must set out why this specific litigation is in the public interest.

62. In conclusion, Rema contends that the allegations levelled against the company are serious and are designed to impugn its reputation in the public. It says it is a well-established entity with a commercial footprint overseas and the contents of the article only serves to diminish its reputation, good name and vested goodwill.

63. This is denied, based on its argumentation above.

Relief sought

  1. The complainant asks for a retraction and an apology, along with the sanction directed by this office, to be published online with equal prominence.

Analysis

Right of reply

  1. Both Rema’s and Moneyweb’s arguments on this issue rest on the wrong assumption, namely the question whether the latter took reasonable and adequate steps to obtain comments from the complaint prior to publication.
  2. I see this matter differently. The point is that the articles were court reporting, which means that Moneyweb was under no obligation to obtain comments from either party in the first place. The fact that the journalist contacted Premier and tried to contact Rema is irrelevant.
  3. The offer to apologise for not having reported that the newspaper had sought comment from Rema but was unsuccessful is therefore unnecessary.
  4. I also note, with appreciation, that Rema’s denial in its court papers was reported.

Factual inaccuracies

The six ‘examples’

  1. My adjudication of the six statements in question (see Points 30 – 48 above) is not a verdict whether they are correct or not. I am looking at them through my journalistic lens.
  2. Most of the “examples” of stating allegations as facts that Rema complains about cannot hold water. Moneyweb is correct in almost every respect – the reportage never presented the allegations as facts; it consistently attributed them to Rema’s opinion.
  3. The only exception is the use of the words “court application”. The editor has admitted to this mistake. I also consider that those words were only used in a subheading, as well as Moneyweb’s argument that it was a “minor terminological error” which “did not misrepresent the substance or status of the dispute”.

Megan Naidu’s dismissal

  1. In the context of the alleged collusion between the two brothers “to gain confidential access to competitor information and swing business his brother’s way”, the statement in the article reads, “Megan was subsequently dismissed by Dunlop”. To my mind, the use of the word “subsequently” suggests that Megan was dismissed because of the allegation – a suggestion which Rema strongly denies (and which Moneyweb does not dispute). Yes, it was accurate that he was dismissed afterwards, but the inference remains that his dismissal was a result of collusion between him and his brother.
  2. In correspondence, dated 15 May 2026, the editor made the following offer to Rema’s attorneys: “If your client wishes to place on record the circumstances of the dismissal, Moneyweb would be willing to publish that clarification.” Van Niekerk says that this offer was refused. I have no evidence to the contrary.
  3. I could find no justification for the complaint that the article created the impression that Rema was “fully aware” of the relationship between the two brothers, but that it had elected to ignore it entirely.

Public interest; dignity and reputation

  1. Rema’s argument that, just because something is interesting, does not necessarily mean it is in the public interest is, of course, correct.
  2. However, keep in mind that the Press Code does not prohibit the publication of “interesting” news.
  3. Even if the issue was not in the public interest (I by no means concede that that is the case), Moneyweb was still entitled to report on the court case.
  4. Given my argumentation (above) and my finding (below), I have no reason to believe that the reportage has unnecessarily damaged Rema’s dignity and reputation.

Finding

  1. The sub-heading “court application” is in breach of Clause 1.1 of the Press Code that states, “The media shall report news truthfully, accurately and fairly.”
  2. The use of the word “subsequently” is misleading, as it wrongly implies that Megan Naidu was dismissed because of the allegation of collusion. This is in breach of Clause 1.2 of the Code which reads, “The media shall present news in context and in a balanced manner…”
  3. The bulk of the complaint is dismissed.

Sanction

  1. Moneyweb is reprimanded for:

a. the inaccurate sub-headline (“court application”) and directed to correct that mistake; and

b. using the word “subsequently” with reference to Megan Naidu’s dismissal and directed to explain why that was misleading.

The above should:

  • be published at the earliest opportunity after the time for an application for leave to appeal has lapsed or, in the event of such an application, after that ruling;
  • be published in print and on all platforms of the publication where the articles were published;
  • be published with a headline including the words “Rema Tip Top” or “Dunlop”;
  • refer to the complaint that was lodged with this office;
  • end with the sentence, “Visit org.za for the full finding”;
  • be published with the logo of the Press Council; and
  • be approved by me.

Appeals procedure

The Complaints Procedure stipulates that within seven working days of receipt of this decision, either party may apply for leave to appeal to the Chairperson of the SA Press Appeals Panel, Judge Bernard Ngoepe, fully setting out the grounds of appeal. He can be contacted at khanyim@presscouncilsa.org.za

Johan Retief

Acting Press Ombud

27 July 2026

 

 

 

Related Posts