- He claims his brother falsely accused him of assault, resulting in criminal charges.
- He says the accusations ruined his reputation at work and in the community before he was cleared.
- The High Court in Johannesburg ruled that his claims should go to trial.
A bitter family dispute has taken another turn after one brother, cleared of assault charges, won the right to pursue civil claims against his sibling. He alleges that false accusations left his reputation in tatters.
The High Court in Johannesburg has ruled that Mauro Pietro Brondani can amend his counterclaim against his brother, Roberto Brondani, to seek damages for allegations that he says falsely branded him a criminal. Acting Judge Shadrack Tebeile found the dispute should be decided at trial rather than being dismissed early.
Brothers at war
The case stems from an argument at the brothers’ parents’ home in Johannesburg on 8 December 2019. Roberto claims Mauro assaulted him and later filed a civil claim for damages. Mauro disputes this, insisting he was the victim in the confrontation.
According to Mauro, the dispute escalated when Roberto laid a criminal complaint, accusing him of assault. Mauro says that the decision changed his life, leading to his arrest, prosecution and years of defending himself in court.
Mauro also says the criminal proceedings damaged his personal and professional reputation. He claims colleagues, supervisors, subordinates and the public became aware of the charges and saw him as someone who had committed a violent crime and could not be trusted.
The judgment notes that Mauro’s assault conviction was later overturned by a Full Bench, which found him not guilty. He was also acquitted of a separate charge relating to an alleged breach of a protection order.
Convinced those outcomes cleared his name, Mauro now wants compensation for the harm he says came from the criminal allegations.
Why the brothers returned to court
To pursue his claims, Mauro asked the court for permission to amend his counterclaim to include damages arising from what he describes as defamatory and malicious allegations.
Roberto opposed the application on several grounds. He argued that Mauro’s proposed claims were legally flawed because they did not explain how the statements had been published or identify who heard them. He also said the claims had expired because more than three years had passed since the complaints were made.
Mauro responded that the complaint to the police counted as publication, and that his claims only became valid after the criminal proceedings ended in his favour.
Court says claims deserve a hearing
Judge Tebeile agreed that the proposed claims should not be dismissed before trial. The court found that Mauro had provided enough facts to support his claims at this stage and was not required to identify everyone who became aware of the allegations.
On the issue of prescription, the judge said these questions should be decided during the trial, once all the evidence is heard.
The court stressed that it was not deciding whether Roberto’s allegations were false or whether Mauro actually suffered reputational harm. Those questions remain for the trial court.
The application to amend was granted, although Mauro was ordered to pay the costs of the proceedings, as he sought the court’s permission to introduce these additional claims.
Get your news on the go. Click here to follow the Conviction WhatsApp channel.
