Durban - The retraction was more important than the money for former municipal manager Michael Sutcliffe, who on Thursday agreed to withdraw his R10.5 million defamation suit against his successor S’bu Sithole in return for an “unreserved withdrawal” of a statement implicating him in a R1 million loss to the city.
He also did not want the ratepayers to have to pick up the tab for what could have been an expensive courtroom brawl which, he believed, would have resulted in him getting damages from the city, his attorney Roger Knowles said on Thursday.
The legal action was sparked by a statement made by Sithole at a press briefing on the Manase Report dealing with fraud and corruption within the municipality.
Sithole told reporters that the city would pursue criminal charges and legal action against Sutcliffe to recover R1.1 million lost as a result of Sutcliffe failing to report fraud.
It was not quite a “sorry” but, in a prepared joint statement given to The Mercury at the Durban High Court on Thursday, Sithole concedes “the statement may have created an impression” that the council had resolved to recover the money from Sutcliffe when there was no such resolution.
The municipality has agreed to pick up Sutcliffe’s legal bill – which will probably be in excess of R500 000, because his lawyers had to read through the entire 3 500-page Manase Report, a cost of more than R200 000 on its own.
“All the parties have agreed that it was in the interests of all concerned to conclude the matter,” the statement read.
Sithole did not attend court. But Sutcliffe joked with municipal officials and lawyers after signing the settlement agreement. He did not stay for the matter to be called before a judge and dealt with formally.
The order agreed to is that either Sithole or the municipality, the one absolving the other, will pay Sutcliffe’s legal costs including the cost of employing senior counsel.
Sutcliffe launched the court action in 2012 and the matter was set down on the roll of the Durban High Court to be heard over three days this week.
Had it gone ahead, Sutcliffe and Sithole would have had to testify.
In his papers, Sutcliffe said the report had not found him in any way responsible for the loss of the money and there was no recommendation that it be recovered from him.
He said his reputation had been damaged and he should be awarded “special damages” because of loss of income as he was unable to secure employment positions which would have otherwise been available to him. Sithole argued that his statement was substantially true, in the public interest, and he had no intention to injure Sutcliffe.
The Mercury